The immigrant is subject to the the same rates of tax and NI as you are and yet he receives significantly less in return . For example - emergency health care only.
What is the difference between 'normal' healthcare and 'emergency' healthcare - especially as the NHS finds it very difficult to charge non-immigrants for any healthcare whatsoever?
What is the difference between 'normal' healthcare and 'emergency' healthcare - especially as the NHS finds it very difficult to charge non-immigrants for any healthcare whatsoever?
Private prescriptions. No dental care (unless you pay the full cost). I think "emergency treatment only" covers it.
I agree that the NHS seems to have lax billing in some areas.
The immigrant is subject to the the same rates of tax and NI as you are and yet he receives significantly less in return . For example - emergency health care only. So - using your logic - the taxpayer is subsidising a non immigrant on mimimum wage, to a much greater extent.
I am guessing that you are maybe not too thrilled about the fact that UK citizens are more than twice as likely to be claiming benefits, when compared to immigrants. So - you seem to be claiming that immigrants who attain settlement, and the uk born children of immigrants, adopt the benefit habits of non immigrants living in impoverished areas.
Can we have a link please?
Whether or not they are entitled to receive state benefits, immigrants will usually be entitled to receive free healthcare through the NHS. There is a fairly common misconception that the NHS is intended to provide free healthcare for British people or British taxpayers. However, this is not correct. The purpose of the NHS is to provide free healthcare to British residents. Therefore, foreign nationals who have permission to be in the UK will generally be entitled to free treatment. Asylum seekers are also entitled to free treatment. Conversely, a long-term British citizen, and tax payer, who has subsequently moved abroad is unlikely to be entitled to free treatment on the NHS.
If you compare 'immigrants' then by all means I understand your point and it does not affect me at all. Remember British Citizens includes all British Citizens. The point I am making, and which wilfully seems to escape you, is that the immigrant (or ethnic minority) communities that have grown up primarily from those brought in to 'do the jobs British people will not do' are not doing those jobs in greater numbers than the rest of the Nation.
In terms of making economic sense, it doesn't.
'Unemployment rates for people from non-White ethnic groups were generally higher than those from White ethnic groups. However, Indian men had a similar level of unemployment to Other White men (7 per cent for each group).
In 2002/03, men from Bangladeshi and Mixed ethnic backgrounds had the highest unemployment rates in Great Britain, at 18 per cent and 17 per cent respectively. The next highest male rates were among Black Africans (15 per cent), Pakistanis (14 per cent) and Black Caribbeans (13 per cent). These rates were around three times the rate for White British men (5 per cent).
The unemployment rates for Indian and Chinese men, at 7 and 6 per cent respectively, were similar to those for White British or White Irish men (5 per cent for each group).
Among women, Pakistanis had the highest unemployment rates (17 per cent) . Unemployment rates for women from the Black African, Black Caribbean and Mixed ethnic groups, at around 12 per cent, were also relatively high and around three times the rate for White British women (4 per cent).
Economic inactivity
Working-age men and women from non-White ethnic groups were generally more likely than those from White groups to be economically inactive, that is, not available for work and/or not actively seeking work. Reasons include being a student, being disabled, or looking after the family and home.
In 2002/03 Chinese men had the highest male working-age economic inactivity rate in Great Britain, at 35 per cent, twice the rate for White British men. The vast majority of inactive Chinese men were students.
Bangladeshi and Pakistani women had the highest female economic inactivity rates (77 per cent and 68 per cent respectively). The majority of these women were looking after their family or home. Within each ethnic group women were more likely than men to be economically inactive.'
That link is very interesting. If you are right then I am happy to back down because this affects someone I know - literally right now. But I still think that your subsidy point is unfair because the modest tax and NI paid by an immigrant on minimum wage will be identical to the modest tax and NI paid by a UK citizen working the same hours for minimum wage. And the latter could be claiming housing benefit + other benefits. Your point that there have been no previous contributions could apply to both individuals.
If you compare 'immigrants' then by all means I understand your point and it does not affect me at all. Remember British Citizens includes all British Citizens. The point I am making, and which wilfully seems to escape you, is that the immigrant (or ethnic minority) communities that have grown up primarily from those brought in to 'do the jobs British people will not do' are not doing those jobs in greater numbers than the rest of the Nation.
In terms of making economic sense, it doesn't.
That link is very interesting. If you are right then I am happy to back down because this affects someone I know - literally right now. But I still think that your subsidy point is unfair because the modest tax and NI paid by an immigrant on minimum wage will be identical to the modest tax and NI paid by a UK citizen working the same hours for minimum wage. And the latter could be claiming housing benefit + other benefits. Your point that there have been no previous contributions could apply to both individuals.
No - I understood the specific point you were making. I simply asked to see a link.
The point is that a UK born citizen has paid tax, or had tax paid in his name since birth and may have been paying income tax and NI for an indeterminate time possibly up to 40 years. An immigrant employee will accept as part of his income package most of the benefits accrued to a UK citizen over that indeterminate period. These benefits will include health care, education and social services as well as translation services if any in his family are lacking in English. The other taxpayers are subsidising that package at the outset because those benefits are immediately effective. This is especially so if the immigrant employee arrives with a family.
So the link does not help? I am unclear what other info you wish as that link makes the point admirably.
The point is that a UK born citizen has paid tax, or had tax paid in his name since birth and may have been paying income tax and NI for an indeterminate time possibly up to 40 years. An immigrant employee will accept as part of his income package most of the benefits accrued to a UK citizen over that indeterminate period. These benefits will include health care, education and social services as well as translation services if any in his family are lacking in English. The other taxpayers are subsidising that package at the outset because those benefits are immediately effective. This is especially so if the immigrant employee arrives with a family.
So the link does not help? I am unclear what other info you wish as that link makes the point admirably.
No - I think you are being unreasonable. Is it wilful?
Let's imagine that the immigrant takes one of those jobs that "British people will not do". Can you not see that it is reasonable to argue that a British candidate for this minimum wage job may have never worked. Is that not the whole point??
But if the British person does get the job - he may then claim tax credits - even though the tax and NI he is paying is already modest. And he may be claiming housing benefit as well. The immigrant can claim neither of these.
The link does not work in firefox but your extract is er......."stunning". I was expecting some data relating to actual communities. For example - if you were able to show that perhaps employment prospects in a poorer part of Liverpool, or Manchester, were having an impact on the local Chinese community - that would be interesting.
But that is not what we have here.
You are showing the forum a link telling us that in the UK in 2002, British citizens ,whose grandparents or great grandparents were immigrants from China. were twice as likely to be unemployed ,when compared with "British white men" - the difference being due to further education/study.
Where exactly are you going with this Blairdenon - other than " the gutter"?
No - I think you are being unreasonable. Is it wilful?
Let's imagine that the immigrant takes one of those jobs that "British people will not do". Can you not see that it is reasonable to argue that a British candidate for this minimum wage job may have never worked. Is that not the whole point??
But if the British person does get the job - he may then claim tax credits - even though the tax and NI he is paying is already modest. And he may be claiming housing benefit as well. The immigrant can claim neither of these.
The link does not work in firefox but your extract is er......."stunning". I was expecting some data relating to actual communities. For example - if you were able to show that perhaps employment prospects in a poorer part of Liverpool, or Manchester, were having an impact on the local Chinese community - that would be interesting.
But that is not what we have here.
You are showing the forum a link telling us that in the UK in 2002, British citizens ,whose grandparents or great grandparents were immigrants from China. were twice as likely to be unemployed ,when compared with "British white men" - the difference being due to further education/study.
Where exactly are you going with this Blairdenon - other than " the gutter"?
Your point depends on a maybe but however you look at it even if a UK person has rarely worked he has still paid tax in its many direct and indirect forms within the UK. As regards the housing benefits and tax credits etc it is an unfortunate statistic that approaching one half of all new council tenants in some boroughs of the capital are going to those born abroad. I suppose that makes sense to you I am afraid it does not to me. The idea of a society is that it looks after those within the society. That does not mean it is inward looking, or closed it just means that it is supposed to be a unit working together for the good of all within the unit. If those edges are too easily blurred by cost considerations then that is the beginning of the fracturing of that society.
As regards the point about my link do I really have to spell it out slowly?
Maybe it is an age thing but I can go back at least 50 years and recall the phrase being used 'the immigrants are doing the jobs British people will not do' it is even now being repeated by many politicians and business people. So if you look at the link and consider some of the communities that are first, second and third generation of those who came in 'to do the jobs British people will not do'.
Let us take one group from the list as an example. The Black African group was 15%, 50 years ago this group was very small in the UK so they are a community founded on the principle of 'doing the jobs British people will not do'. You yourself mad the point that UK citizens are more than twice as likely to be claiming benefits as immigrants and this group will contain both.
Since however we are looking at unemployment then these ONS stats are quite clear that this group, which is dispersed through several areas in the country and not centred specifically in areas of high unemployment, are three times more likely to be jobless. However the reason they are here in the main is because 'they will do the jobs British people will not do' but they are not and in the main are not doing them in far greater numbers than British people are not doing them.
It is strange that when mass immigration is supported it is in the higher echelons of morality, when the problems of mass immigration and immigration policy in general are criticised it is 'in the gutter'. By all means show me I am wrong but do not resort to the time honoured denigration of the argument as opposed to countering the point.
What's to celebrate? Apart from a certain spicy meal, in tangible objective terms, what exactly is the benefit of replacing native culture with foreign culture? I mean if people want foreign culture, why not just go on holiday, or watch a foreign film, or buy foreign food in a supermarket.
Would we be any worse off as a mono cultural society, in a world that we can travel in hours or micro seconds on-line. We have a multicultural world, because we have separate country's with unique cultural identity's. How is turning England in to nothing more than a container with values, for others country's cultures, going to make the world more diverse and interesting?
Its not like its even happening in every country. Most of the migrants that come to the UK, come from countries that are remaining mono-cultural and would not accept millions of Europeans turning up and replacing the local way of life with a foreign one. How much distinct diversity would you see if a television crew did a documentary in India, Nigeria or China for example? Try doing one in Newham and its a totally different story.
I guess it depends what you mean by Multi culturalism. In America, a first generation immigrant who identifies himself as an American is accepted as that by the vast majority of society, which is why I think they have a homogeneous culture in spite of waves of immigrants from all corners of the world. Whereas in Britain diversity has the notion of color and accent,i.e. You can be a British citizen but can never be British. The degree of inclusiveness and acceptance is different. FWIW, you can try doing a documentary in NYC and it will be more "diverse" than a London borough.I believe NYC foreign-born population is 40%, London is 30%.
You are showing the forum a link telling us that in the UK in 2002, British citizens ,whose grandparents or great grandparents were immigrants from China. were twice as likely to be unemployed ,when compared with "British white men" - the difference being due to further education/study.
Where exactly are you going with this Blairdenon - other than " the gutter"?
Wow that's hard to believe. I know that in America, American Chinese make up 2% of the population but routinely encompass 20-30% of all Ivy League university populations.
[
In 2002/03 Chinese men had the highest male working-age economic inactivity rate in Great Britain, at 35 per cent, twice the rate for White British men. The vast majority of inactive Chinese men were students.
Truly strange finding.
Could it be that these are not actually British citizens but simply students from China in British higher education? Because according to this,
According to a study done by the London School of Economics in 2010, the British Chinese tend to be better educated and earn more than the general British population as a whole.
British Chinese are also more likely to go to more prestigious universities or to get higher class degrees than any other ethnic minority in the United Kingdom.
Nearly 45% of British Chinese men and more than a third of British Chinese women achieved a first or higher degree. Between 1995 and 1997, 29% of British Chinese have higher educational qualifications.
This was the highest rate for any ethnic group during those two years.
A study done by the Royal Society of Chemistry and Institute of Physics revealed that British Chinese students were four times as likely than other ethnic groups in the United Kingdom to achieve three or more science A-levels
British Chinese men earn the highest median wage for any ethnic group with £12.70 earned per hour, followed by the medians for White British men at £11.40, and Multiracial Britons at £11.30 and British Indian men at £11.20.
British Chinese women also have the highest individual incomes among all ethnic groups in the UK followed by White British and Indian women.
A study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 2011 found out that British Chinese have the lowest poverty rates among different ethnic groups in Britain.
The choice of what a business does is in the hands of that business. A rate for a job is inclusive of what people in the job market are willing to accept.
It also has to take into account that business's ability to conduct business.
If a company in the UK employs an immigrant at minimum wage then all other tax payers are subsidising that job because the immigrant has immediate access to healthcare, education and social services to which he has not contributed.
To what benefits is someone on a work visa actually entitled - and can you import someone to work for the national minimum wage?
I use immigrant communities in the way that the EHRC and the likes of the Guardian use it. You seem to be the only one having a problem with it. It of course relates primarily to ethnic minority communities who are of recent and current immigrant stock.
I don't read the likes of the Guardian, nor the output of the EHRC. As such, my request for clarification as to your use of the term was not unreasonable. Please accept it at face value. My reason for doing so is that it occurs to me that the term "immigrant communities", thus defined, includes a (potentially larger) number of British citizens who are not themselves migrants, but could potentially include anyone descended from a migrant who happens to live in such a community.
Racism means that you believe that certain attributes are racial. It frequently infers a belief in superiority but it is not necessarily so as per this definition
'a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others'
I doubt you'd find an example that didn't imply superiority in one form or another.
As I said if I say black people are on average better runners than other races then that is a racist comment however true it may be. The individual achievement is partly determined by race.
That's not in dispute: it is, after all, stating or at least implying strongly that one group of humans has an inherent superiority when it comes to running.
I don't see how the term applies to multiculturalism. Culture is nurture, not nature.
A diverse society described as 'diversity is our strength' is indicating that diversity of culture and ethnicity is superior to that of a much more monocultural and monoethnic society. The fact that there is no research which says that diversity is a strengthening attribute in a society seems to also escape everyone, in fact most historic diverse societies have severe problems.
I'm not here to argue about the benefits or otherwise of cultural diversity. I'm not all that convinced of the benefits of enshrining cultural diversity to a degree that may create insuperable divisions between inhabitants; as such, I'm more of an assimilationist myself. Rather, my beef is with your claim that it amounts to a racist idea - which does appear to be jumping the shark.
I doubt you'd find an example that didn't imply superiority in one form or another.
That's not in dispute: it is, after all, stating or at least implying strongly that one group of humans has an inherent superiority when it comes to running.
I don't see how the term applies to multiculturalism. Culture is nurture, not nature.
I'm not here to argue about the benefits or otherwise of cultural diversity. I'm not all that convinced of the benefits of enshrining cultural diversity to a degree that may create insuperable divisions between inhabitants; as such, I'm more of an assimilationist myself. Rather, my beef is with your claim that it amounts to a racist idea - which does appear to be jumping the shark.
It is strange that saying one set of people is inherently better at running than another group of people is non-racist but inferring that one set of people is on average more intelligent than another set of people is racism at its worst?
Culture is nurture not nature? That is far from being proven in any scientific research. Culture is the sum total of many factors one of which may be the nature of the people who have formed that culture. Nurture perpetuates it.
Assimilation is something that has to be given time and low density to work effectively because there has to be pressure on new arrivals to integrate into the society which is the first step to assimilation. If there is no integrative pressure then assimilation has no chance.
If diversity is described as 'our strength' then that implies that each ethnic group has something to offer by way of culture/ethnicity to the whole. This implies that there is some cultural/ethnic attribute that is superior in some way and will be beneficial to the society that embraces it. If highlighting the inferior aspects that some cultural/ethnic groups can bring is stated to be racism then it follows that any consideration of a superior/inferior racial attribute must be racist otherwise there would never be any benefit to a diverse society, but that is not what is stated.
It is strange that saying one set of people is inherently better at running than another group of people is non-racist but inferring that one set of people is on average more intelligent than another set of people is racism at its worst?
This comment appears to be a non sequitur. "...saying one set of people is inherently better at running than another group of people is non-racist..." I've not said this. In fact, I've said the opposite.
Culture is nurture not nature? That is far from being proven in any scientific research.
Oh, come on. It's been known since long before natural philosophy developed into what we call modern science. "Give me a child until he is seven, and I'll show you the man"?
Or do you seriously believe that, if you were to adopt a child of a different country of origin at a very young age, they'll magically develop a cultural philosophy and worldview alien to that of their upbringing - based on their genes?
If so, I'm afraid all I can do is laugh at you.
Assimilation is something that has to be given time and low density to work effectively because there has to be pressure on new arrivals to integrate into the society which is the first step to assimilation. If there is no integrative pressure then assimilation has no chance.
It's not quite as simple as that. It's a bit of a two-way street: there also has to be sufficient tolerance on the part of existing residents to enable and encourage new arrivals to integrate. Integration is as much about developing relationships in the community as it is about adopting local cultural norms; you can't expect people to integrate if they're greeted with suspicion and hostility, ostracised and ghettoised.
Sadly, the track record on that score hasn't always been rosy, and bizarrely, it's not obvious that raw numbers are that much of a factor ("No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish" signs abounded at a time when migration figures were far lower than they are today).
If diversity is described as 'our strength' then that implies that each ethnic group has something to offer by way of culture/ethnicity to the whole. This implies that there is some cultural/ethnic attribute that is superior in some way and will be beneficial to the society that embraces it. If highlighting the inferior aspects that some cultural/ethnic groups can bring is stated to be racism then it follows that any consideration of a superior/inferior racial attribute must be racist otherwise there would never be any benefit to a diverse society, but that is not what is stated.
Culture is not the same as ethnicity, and it does not help to confuse the two. All the notion of cultural diversity implies is that each culture has something to offer - that remains the case irrespective of ethnicity.
And in any event, even if one were to allow this egregious conflation of the terms "culture" and "ethnicity", you'd still be wrong on the simple basis that the notion that diversity is better than a monoculture does not necessarily involve any statement that any one culture has aspects that are superior to others in any respect - but rather an assertion of cosmopolitanism in its own right.
Of course, even the most cosmopolitan amongst us are not normally cultural relativists in practice, so the chances are that most people will view one culture as superior to others (and it will mostly, but not always, be that in which they were themselves brought up); but that isn't racism either, and in any event that's not a claim that is made on behalf of any culture in any aspect in respect of the notion of multiculturalism.
Oh, come on. It's been known since long before natural philosophy developed into what we call modern science. "Give me a child until he is seven, and I'll show you the man"?
Or do you seriously believe that, if you were to adopt a child of a different country of origin at a very young age, they'll magically develop a cultural philosophy and worldview alien to that of their upbringing - based on their genes?
If so, I'm afraid all I can do is laugh at you.
It's not quite as simple as that. It's a bit of a two-way street: there also has to be sufficient tolerance on the part of existing residents to enable and encourage new arrivals to integrate. Integration is as much about developing relationships in the community as it is about adopting local cultural norms; you can't expect people to integrate if they're greeted with suspicion and hostility, ostracised and ghettoised.
Sadly, the track record on that score hasn't always been rosy, and bizarrely, it's not obvious that raw numbers are that much of a factor ("No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish" signs abounded at a time when migration figures were far lower than they are today).
Culture is not the same as ethnicity, and it does not help to confuse the two. All the notion of cultural diversity implies is that each culture has something to offer - that remains the case irrespective of ethnicity.
And in any event, even if one were to allow this egregious conflation of the terms "culture" and "ethnicity", you'd still be wrong on the simple basis that the notion that diversity is better than a monoculture does not necessarily involve any statement that any one culture has aspects that are superior to others in any respect - but rather an assertion of cosmopolitanism in its own right.
Of course, even the most cosmopolitan amongst us are not normally cultural relativists in practice, so the chances are that most people will view one culture as superior to others (and it will mostly, but not always, be that in which they were themselves brought up); but that isn't racism either, and in any event that's not a claim that is made on behalf of any culture in any aspect in respect of the notion of multiculturalism.
I am afraid some of the work with twins separated at an early age shows that many of their habits, ideas, behaviour and beliefs follow similar patterns irrespective of the culture they have been raised in. So by all means laugh away. Believing that nurture is the rule is idiotic at best. Nature plays many vital roles as well as other factors such as physical environment.
Culture is not the same as ethnicity and I did not say it was but the measure of diversity used in the UK for employment and equality in general is independent of culture, as culture is not measured. What is measured is ethnic group and religious beliefs (as well as gender, disability, sexual orientation etc.). In terms of diversity an ethnic minority person whose family have been here for two hundred years will be treated identically for the measures of diversity as an individual who comes straight from the Caribbean. The culture is not considered the ethnic group defines the required diversity.
If ethnicity was not part of culture then the BCA would not exist which is the Black Cultural Archive. Culture it seems is intrinsically linked with ethnicity even if we do not want to be .
I am afraid some of the work with twins separated at an early age shows that many of their habits, ideas, behaviour and beliefs follow similar patterns irrespective of the culture they have been raised in.
"Some", "many": those are weasel words. Show me this work with twins separated at birth with markedly different upbringings that denotes cultural heredity.
So by all means laugh away. Believing that nurture is the rule is idiotic at best.
I did not say "nurture is the rule". I do, however, doubt your claim that genetics plays a significant role - which is what is required for culture to be inextricably intertwined with ethnicity - and maintain my assertion that nurture is significant until and unless you can establish otherwise.
Absent such compelling evidence, I suggest you stick that charge of "idiotic" where the Sun don't shine. If anything is idiotic around here, it's the ridiculous assertion that multiculturalism is racist. It may be many things - and I don't make any assertions about whether it is beneficial or not - but racist? That's crazy talk.
Culture is not the same as ethnicity and I did not say it was but the measure of diversity used in the UK for employment and equality in general is independent of culture, as culture is not measured.
Then the measure of diversity used in the UK for such purposes is not cultural diversity, but rather ethnic diversity, isn't it?
What is measured is ethnic group and religious beliefs (as well as gender, disability, sexual orientation etc.).
Religious beliefs are at least relevant; after all, religions of varying sorts tend to be prevalent in some cultures more than others.
In terms of diversity an ethnic minority person whose family have been here for two hundred years will be treated identically for the measures of diversity as an individual who comes straight from the Caribbean. The culture is not considered the ethnic group defines the required diversity.
"Required", according to whom?
If ethnicity was not part of culture then the BCA would not exist which is the Black Cultural Archive. Culture it seems is intrinsically linked with ethnicity even if we do not want to be .
I disagree; they overlap - for obvious reasons; ethnic groups and cultures both are affected by geography and by competing ethnic groups and cultures, after all - but they are not intrinsically linked, and in any event they can be somewhat nebulous terms (the term "black" covers, if memory serves, a set of humanity that contains greater genetic diversity than the rest of the human race put together). An ethnic group may contain a number of distinct cultures, and vice versa. As for the BCA, it doesn't really establish anything of the sort: there is no one "Black culture", but a broad variety of cultures (though it could perhaps be argued that the shared experiences of Black British people since coming to the UK has resulted in the development of an entirely new culture, quite distinct from the cultures of their antecedents' countries of origin).
"Some", "many": those are weasel words. Show me this work with twins separated at birth with markedly different upbringings that denotes cultural heredity.
I did not say "nurture is the rule". I do, however, doubt your claim that genetics plays a significant role - which is what is required for culture to be inextricably intertwined with ethnicity - and maintain my assertion that nurture is significant until and unless you can establish otherwise.
Absent such compelling evidence, I suggest you stick that charge of "idiotic" where the Sun don't shine. If anything is idiotic around here, it's the ridiculous assertion that multiculturalism is racist. It may be many things - and I don't make any assertions about whether it is beneficial or not - but racist? That's crazy talk.
Then the measure of diversity used in the UK for such purposes is not cultural diversity, but rather ethnic diversity, isn't it?
Religious beliefs are at least relevant; after all, religions of varying sorts tend to be prevalent in some cultures more than others.
"Required", according to whom?
I disagree; they overlap - for obvious reasons; ethnic groups and cultures both are affected by geography and by competing ethnic groups and cultures, after all - but they are not intrinsically linked, and in any event they can be somewhat nebulous terms (the term "black" covers, if memory serves, a set of humanity that contains greater genetic diversity than the rest of the human race put together). An ethnic group may contain a number of distinct cultures, and vice versa. As for the BCA, it doesn't really establish anything of the sort: there is no one "Black culture", but a broad variety of cultures.
You did say culture is nurture not nature and now seem to be saying differently.
The study of twins is well documented and ongoing
Their upbringings (culture) were different but each developed along similar lines. Their cultural identity was weaker than their genetic identity. In one example one was a Hitler youth member and another was raised as a Jew but developed (or inherited) similar thought processes and habits.
I will say again culture is the consequence of the people who have developed that culture in the environment in which it develops. Nurture perpetuates the culture but is only loosely part of the development.
Their upbringings (culture) were different but each developed along similar lines. Their cultural identity was weaker than their genetic identity.
A claim that is not established by the link you provide - though we are talking about reunited siblings which is a little more significant than the rather more nebulous bit-bucket that might be the "shared genetic identity" of myself and some random from Yorkshire to whom I'm probably no more related than a No. 19 bus.
Similar personal physical traits they may have, and that's to be expected given that they have close-to-identical bodies, but such shared personal traits do not amount to cultural similarity, and there's nothing there in that link that clearly indicates that culture generally is trumped by genetics, nor even that their shared genetics caused them to arrive at similar philosophical outlooks that somehow overcame years of indoctrination in differing cultures.
I will say again culture is the consequence of the people who have developed that culture in the environment in which it develops.
Which, in and of itself, is a pretty nebulous and somewhat circular statement - and one that in no way negates my point. The point remains that whilst culture may develop by such means, it is not innate - it is taught, just as religious beliefs and languages are. Nurture perpetuates the culture: that's pretty significant. End of discussion, I think.
Comments
What is the difference between 'normal' healthcare and 'emergency' healthcare - especially as the NHS finds it very difficult to charge non-immigrants for any healthcare whatsoever?
Private prescriptions. No dental care (unless you pay the full cost). I think "emergency treatment only" covers it.
I agree that the NHS seems to have lax billing in some areas.
This seems to contradict you;
http://www.aboutimmigration.co.uk/uk-immigrants-state-benefits.html
Whether or not they are entitled to receive state benefits, immigrants will usually be entitled to receive free healthcare through the NHS. There is a fairly common misconception that the NHS is intended to provide free healthcare for British people or British taxpayers. However, this is not correct. The purpose of the NHS is to provide free healthcare to British residents. Therefore, foreign nationals who have permission to be in the UK will generally be entitled to free treatment. Asylum seekers are also entitled to free treatment. Conversely, a long-term British citizen, and tax payer, who has subsequently moved abroad is unlikely to be entitled to free treatment on the NHS.
If you compare 'immigrants' then by all means I understand your point and it does not affect me at all. Remember British Citizens includes all British Citizens. The point I am making, and which wilfully seems to escape you, is that the immigrant (or ethnic minority) communities that have grown up primarily from those brought in to 'do the jobs British people will not do' are not doing those jobs in greater numbers than the rest of the Nation.
In terms of making economic sense, it doesn't.
This link may help
www.ons.gov.uk/ons/.../ethnicity/...ethnicity...ethnicity.../focus-on---...
'Unemployment rates for people from non-White ethnic groups were generally higher than those from White ethnic groups. However, Indian men had a similar level of unemployment to Other White men (7 per cent for each group).
In 2002/03, men from Bangladeshi and Mixed ethnic backgrounds had the highest unemployment rates in Great Britain, at 18 per cent and 17 per cent respectively. The next highest male rates were among Black Africans (15 per cent), Pakistanis (14 per cent) and Black Caribbeans (13 per cent). These rates were around three times the rate for White British men (5 per cent).
The unemployment rates for Indian and Chinese men, at 7 and 6 per cent respectively, were similar to those for White British or White Irish men (5 per cent for each group).
Among women, Pakistanis had the highest unemployment rates (17 per cent) . Unemployment rates for women from the Black African, Black Caribbean and Mixed ethnic groups, at around 12 per cent, were also relatively high and around three times the rate for White British women (4 per cent).
Economic inactivity
Working-age men and women from non-White ethnic groups were generally more likely than those from White groups to be economically inactive, that is, not available for work and/or not actively seeking work. Reasons include being a student, being disabled, or looking after the family and home.
In 2002/03 Chinese men had the highest male working-age economic inactivity rate in Great Britain, at 35 per cent, twice the rate for White British men. The vast majority of inactive Chinese men were students.
Bangladeshi and Pakistani women had the highest female economic inactivity rates (77 per cent and 68 per cent respectively). The majority of these women were looking after their family or home. Within each ethnic group women were more likely than men to be economically inactive.'
That link is very interesting. If you are right then I am happy to back down because this affects someone I know - literally right now. But I still think that your subsidy point is unfair because the modest tax and NI paid by an immigrant on minimum wage will be identical to the modest tax and NI paid by a UK citizen working the same hours for minimum wage. And the latter could be claiming housing benefit + other benefits. Your point that there have been no previous contributions could apply to both individuals.
No - I understood the specific point you were making. I simply asked to see a link.
The point is that a UK born citizen has paid tax, or had tax paid in his name since birth and may have been paying income tax and NI for an indeterminate time possibly up to 40 years. An immigrant employee will accept as part of his income package most of the benefits accrued to a UK citizen over that indeterminate period. These benefits will include health care, education and social services as well as translation services if any in his family are lacking in English. The other taxpayers are subsidising that package at the outset because those benefits are immediately effective. This is especially so if the immigrant employee arrives with a family.
So the link does not help? I am unclear what other info you wish as that link makes the point admirably.
No - I think you are being unreasonable. Is it wilful?
Let's imagine that the immigrant takes one of those jobs that "British people will not do". Can you not see that it is reasonable to argue that a British candidate for this minimum wage job may have never worked. Is that not the whole point??
But if the British person does get the job - he may then claim tax credits - even though the tax and NI he is paying is already modest. And he may be claiming housing benefit as well. The immigrant can claim neither of these.
The link does not work in firefox but your extract is er......."stunning". I was expecting some data relating to actual communities. For example - if you were able to show that perhaps employment prospects in a poorer part of Liverpool, or Manchester, were having an impact on the local Chinese community - that would be interesting.
But that is not what we have here.
You are showing the forum a link telling us that in the UK in 2002, British citizens ,whose grandparents or great grandparents were immigrants from China. were twice as likely to be unemployed ,when compared with "British white men" - the difference being due to further education/study.
Where exactly are you going with this Blairdenon - other than " the gutter"?
Your point depends on a maybe but however you look at it even if a UK person has rarely worked he has still paid tax in its many direct and indirect forms within the UK. As regards the housing benefits and tax credits etc it is an unfortunate statistic that approaching one half of all new council tenants in some boroughs of the capital are going to those born abroad. I suppose that makes sense to you I am afraid it does not to me. The idea of a society is that it looks after those within the society. That does not mean it is inward looking, or closed it just means that it is supposed to be a unit working together for the good of all within the unit. If those edges are too easily blurred by cost considerations then that is the beginning of the fracturing of that society.
As regards the point about my link do I really have to spell it out slowly?
Maybe it is an age thing but I can go back at least 50 years and recall the phrase being used 'the immigrants are doing the jobs British people will not do' it is even now being repeated by many politicians and business people. So if you look at the link and consider some of the communities that are first, second and third generation of those who came in 'to do the jobs British people will not do'.
Let us take one group from the list as an example. The Black African group was 15%, 50 years ago this group was very small in the UK so they are a community founded on the principle of 'doing the jobs British people will not do'. You yourself mad the point that UK citizens are more than twice as likely to be claiming benefits as immigrants and this group will contain both.
Since however we are looking at unemployment then these ONS stats are quite clear that this group, which is dispersed through several areas in the country and not centred specifically in areas of high unemployment, are three times more likely to be jobless. However the reason they are here in the main is because 'they will do the jobs British people will not do' but they are not and in the main are not doing them in far greater numbers than British people are not doing them.
It is strange that when mass immigration is supported it is in the higher echelons of morality, when the problems of mass immigration and immigration policy in general are criticised it is 'in the gutter'. By all means show me I am wrong but do not resort to the time honoured denigration of the argument as opposed to countering the point.
I guess it depends what you mean by Multi culturalism. In America, a first generation immigrant who identifies himself as an American is accepted as that by the vast majority of society, which is why I think they have a homogeneous culture in spite of waves of immigrants from all corners of the world. Whereas in Britain diversity has the notion of color and accent,i.e. You can be a British citizen but can never be British. The degree of inclusiveness and acceptance is different. FWIW, you can try doing a documentary in NYC and it will be more "diverse" than a London borough.I believe NYC foreign-born population is 40%, London is 30%.
Wow that's hard to believe. I know that in America, American Chinese make up 2% of the population but routinely encompass 20-30% of all Ivy League university populations.
Truly strange finding.
Could it be that these are not actually British citizens but simply students from China in British higher education? Because according to this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Chinese#Socioeconomics
According to a study done by the London School of Economics in 2010, the British Chinese tend to be better educated and earn more than the general British population as a whole.
British Chinese are also more likely to go to more prestigious universities or to get higher class degrees than any other ethnic minority in the United Kingdom.
Nearly 45% of British Chinese men and more than a third of British Chinese women achieved a first or higher degree. Between 1995 and 1997, 29% of British Chinese have higher educational qualifications.
This was the highest rate for any ethnic group during those two years.
A study done by the Royal Society of Chemistry and Institute of Physics revealed that British Chinese students were four times as likely than other ethnic groups in the United Kingdom to achieve three or more science A-levels
British Chinese men earn the highest median wage for any ethnic group with £12.70 earned per hour, followed by the medians for White British men at £11.40, and Multiracial Britons at £11.30 and British Indian men at £11.20.
British Chinese women also have the highest individual incomes among all ethnic groups in the UK followed by White British and Indian women.
A study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 2011 found out that British Chinese have the lowest poverty rates among different ethnic groups in Britain.
The foreign-born population of New York is 36% and has remained stable at that level since the turn of the century.
The foreign-born population of London is 42% in Inner London and 32% in Outer London and growing.
It also has to take into account that business's ability to conduct business.
To what benefits is someone on a work visa actually entitled - and can you import someone to work for the national minimum wage?
I don't read the likes of the Guardian, nor the output of the EHRC. As such, my request for clarification as to your use of the term was not unreasonable. Please accept it at face value. My reason for doing so is that it occurs to me that the term "immigrant communities", thus defined, includes a (potentially larger) number of British citizens who are not themselves migrants, but could potentially include anyone descended from a migrant who happens to live in such a community.
I doubt you'd find an example that didn't imply superiority in one form or another.
That's not in dispute: it is, after all, stating or at least implying strongly that one group of humans has an inherent superiority when it comes to running.
I don't see how the term applies to multiculturalism. Culture is nurture, not nature.
I'm not here to argue about the benefits or otherwise of cultural diversity. I'm not all that convinced of the benefits of enshrining cultural diversity to a degree that may create insuperable divisions between inhabitants; as such, I'm more of an assimilationist myself. Rather, my beef is with your claim that it amounts to a racist idea - which does appear to be jumping the shark.
It is strange that saying one set of people is inherently better at running than another group of people is non-racist but inferring that one set of people is on average more intelligent than another set of people is racism at its worst?
Culture is nurture not nature? That is far from being proven in any scientific research. Culture is the sum total of many factors one of which may be the nature of the people who have formed that culture. Nurture perpetuates it.
Assimilation is something that has to be given time and low density to work effectively because there has to be pressure on new arrivals to integrate into the society which is the first step to assimilation. If there is no integrative pressure then assimilation has no chance.
If diversity is described as 'our strength' then that implies that each ethnic group has something to offer by way of culture/ethnicity to the whole. This implies that there is some cultural/ethnic attribute that is superior in some way and will be beneficial to the society that embraces it. If highlighting the inferior aspects that some cultural/ethnic groups can bring is stated to be racism then it follows that any consideration of a superior/inferior racial attribute must be racist otherwise there would never be any benefit to a diverse society, but that is not what is stated.
This comment appears to be a non sequitur. "...saying one set of people is inherently better at running than another group of people is non-racist..." I've not said this. In fact, I've said the opposite.
Oh, come on. It's been known since long before natural philosophy developed into what we call modern science. "Give me a child until he is seven, and I'll show you the man"?
Or do you seriously believe that, if you were to adopt a child of a different country of origin at a very young age, they'll magically develop a cultural philosophy and worldview alien to that of their upbringing - based on their genes?
If so, I'm afraid all I can do is laugh at you.
It's not quite as simple as that. It's a bit of a two-way street: there also has to be sufficient tolerance on the part of existing residents to enable and encourage new arrivals to integrate. Integration is as much about developing relationships in the community as it is about adopting local cultural norms; you can't expect people to integrate if they're greeted with suspicion and hostility, ostracised and ghettoised.
Sadly, the track record on that score hasn't always been rosy, and bizarrely, it's not obvious that raw numbers are that much of a factor ("No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish" signs abounded at a time when migration figures were far lower than they are today).
Culture is not the same as ethnicity, and it does not help to confuse the two. All the notion of cultural diversity implies is that each culture has something to offer - that remains the case irrespective of ethnicity.
And in any event, even if one were to allow this egregious conflation of the terms "culture" and "ethnicity", you'd still be wrong on the simple basis that the notion that diversity is better than a monoculture does not necessarily involve any statement that any one culture has aspects that are superior to others in any respect - but rather an assertion of cosmopolitanism in its own right.
Of course, even the most cosmopolitan amongst us are not normally cultural relativists in practice, so the chances are that most people will view one culture as superior to others (and it will mostly, but not always, be that in which they were themselves brought up); but that isn't racism either, and in any event that's not a claim that is made on behalf of any culture in any aspect in respect of the notion of multiculturalism.
I am afraid some of the work with twins separated at an early age shows that many of their habits, ideas, behaviour and beliefs follow similar patterns irrespective of the culture they have been raised in. So by all means laugh away. Believing that nurture is the rule is idiotic at best. Nature plays many vital roles as well as other factors such as physical environment.
Culture is not the same as ethnicity and I did not say it was but the measure of diversity used in the UK for employment and equality in general is independent of culture, as culture is not measured. What is measured is ethnic group and religious beliefs (as well as gender, disability, sexual orientation etc.). In terms of diversity an ethnic minority person whose family have been here for two hundred years will be treated identically for the measures of diversity as an individual who comes straight from the Caribbean. The culture is not considered the ethnic group defines the required diversity.
If ethnicity was not part of culture then the BCA would not exist which is the Black Cultural Archive. Culture it seems is intrinsically linked with ethnicity even if we do not want to be .
"Some", "many": those are weasel words. Show me this work with twins separated at birth with markedly different upbringings that denotes cultural heredity.
I did not say "nurture is the rule". I do, however, doubt your claim that genetics plays a significant role - which is what is required for culture to be inextricably intertwined with ethnicity - and maintain my assertion that nurture is significant until and unless you can establish otherwise.
Absent such compelling evidence, I suggest you stick that charge of "idiotic" where the Sun don't shine. If anything is idiotic around here, it's the ridiculous assertion that multiculturalism is racist. It may be many things - and I don't make any assertions about whether it is beneficial or not - but racist? That's crazy talk.
Then the measure of diversity used in the UK for such purposes is not cultural diversity, but rather ethnic diversity, isn't it?
Religious beliefs are at least relevant; after all, religions of varying sorts tend to be prevalent in some cultures more than others.
"Required", according to whom?
I disagree; they overlap - for obvious reasons; ethnic groups and cultures both are affected by geography and by competing ethnic groups and cultures, after all - but they are not intrinsically linked, and in any event they can be somewhat nebulous terms (the term "black" covers, if memory serves, a set of humanity that contains greater genetic diversity than the rest of the human race put together). An ethnic group may contain a number of distinct cultures, and vice versa. As for the BCA, it doesn't really establish anything of the sort: there is no one "Black culture", but a broad variety of cultures (though it could perhaps be argued that the shared experiences of Black British people since coming to the UK has resulted in the development of an entirely new culture, quite distinct from the cultures of their antecedents' countries of origin).
You did say culture is nurture not nature and now seem to be saying differently.
The study of twins is well documented and ongoing
http://lornareiko.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/identical-twins-who-were-separated-at-birth-what-are-they-like/
Their upbringings (culture) were different but each developed along similar lines. Their cultural identity was weaker than their genetic identity. In one example one was a Hitler youth member and another was raised as a Jew but developed (or inherited) similar thought processes and habits.
I will say again culture is the consequence of the people who have developed that culture in the environment in which it develops. Nurture perpetuates the culture but is only loosely part of the development.
No, I'm not. But I did not say "nurture is the rule" either.
A claim that is not established by the link you provide - though we are talking about reunited siblings which is a little more significant than the rather more nebulous bit-bucket that might be the "shared genetic identity" of myself and some random from Yorkshire to whom I'm probably no more related than a No. 19 bus.
Similar personal physical traits they may have, and that's to be expected given that they have close-to-identical bodies, but such shared personal traits do not amount to cultural similarity, and there's nothing there in that link that clearly indicates that culture generally is trumped by genetics, nor even that their shared genetics caused them to arrive at similar philosophical outlooks that somehow overcame years of indoctrination in differing cultures.
Which, in and of itself, is a pretty nebulous and somewhat circular statement - and one that in no way negates my point. The point remains that whilst culture may develop by such means, it is not innate - it is taught, just as religious beliefs and languages are. Nurture perpetuates the culture: that's pretty significant. End of discussion, I think.
I thought that was what I said a few posts back.