On this subject more than maybe any other, misinformation rules.
News reports say that Britons are rioting in the street over a knife attack by a Muslim immigrant a locally-born Christian.
The misinformation is almost symbolic.
Rioters (committing these violent crimes) are alleging that violent crime has risen with immigration. Yet ...
They've alleged that "grooming gangs" are everywhere in immigrant communities. Yet ...
It's been claimed that migrants — especially illegal migrants — overwhelmingly take benefits. Yet ...
- the vast majority of new legal migrants are unable to access benefits due to a policy called "no recourse to public funds"
- new migrants pay something called the Immigration Health Surcharge (on top of other taxes) at rates greater than some private health insurance
- illegal immigrants aren't entitled to any benefits at all
- far from being "a burden on public services" it is overwhelmingly migrants who work in public services (health, education etc.) without which these government systems would have collapsed long ago
It's argued that "migrants don't integrate." Yet ... despite many hurdles, research suggests that on five measures assessed (structural social, cultural, civic and political) there is no lack of integration, or any lack of motivation to integrate.
- out of 17 countries surveyed, the UK public were least likely to push for strict limits on foreigners or prohibitions on immigration
- ... were least likely to believe immigration increases the crime rate
- ... were least likely to say that immigration causes unemployment
- ... among the least likely to say that immigration increases the risk of terrorism; and
- has one of the most favourable views of the impacts of immigration
So why, you may wonder, are some Britons rioting in the street about immigration over a crime by a locally-born man.
Dunno.
It's almost like they've been played.
[Hat tip Dan Sohege, from whom most of these links, graphs, news and answers are sourced.]
7 comments:
You reckon things will calm down then, after a while?
A few Far Right White racists will get their heads beaten in by Starmer's new police units, or maybe even the existing Police, or at a minimum they'll be arrested in jailed for a few years, and that will be that?
Dunno. But the vast amounts of misinformation around surely ain't helping.
Ok. I'll see if I can jump start a conversation with other readers of this blog not by linking to any of the usual suspects but to a Libertarian source, Samizdata, for some commentary.
“Farage is a snake, but if we were honest on migration he’d have no fangs”, which highlights the lies that sucessive British governments have told about immigration, starting with Tony Blair (“we will drown the right in Diversity”....[to] "rub the right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date".)) and links this to the dropping trust of the authorities on this issue:
There I must disagree with Mr Syed: the dissipation of trust is no longer slow. That loss of trust is one of the things that has made me much less pro-immigration than I once was. If that means the loss of my Libertarian purity certificate, so be it. I see a similar change in many others. We used to talk expansively about how we did not trust the state one inch, but I think in secret we did trust the bureaucrats and the politicians to be responsible gatekeepers. We no longer do. Inevitably, that means we want stronger gates.
If you feel my “we” above does not include you, feel free to explain why in the comments. My old self, the one that hovered on the edge of being an advocate for the abolition of borders, is still in there somewhere, pleading to be reconvinced.
Her commentators don't help much. Two key comments:
Let’s put it this way, Natalie. Libertarians believe in the freedom of association, which implies the freedom to choose the opposite. Britain has become somewhere where that latter choice has been nuked from orbit.
...
I like Natalie have lost my libertarian purity when it comes to immigration. I should say, full disclosure, I am myself an immigrant to the USA, and I think immigration is often a good thing...And why have I changed my mind? It is simply because of the realities that a country or a nation needs a population to support its basic vision[s]...So controlling immigration to maintain the cultural ideas and the core philosophical underpinnings that make a society great is one of the most important factors in deciding policy. But to even suggest that is racist, which tells you all you need to know.
...
When you press the enthusiasts for the mass immigration to Britain (and Europe wider) over the past 30 years or so hard enough, their justifications largely are reduced to racial revenge. Basically, several centuries ago Britain had built a large empire, so now the ex-colonised have a right to colonise us and make our lives miserable.
And understand that the focus here is on Islamist immigrants. Other immigrant groups in the past have integrated and assimilated with Britain - slowly, painfully, and against racism.
But as increasingly seen in Britain the recent Muslim arrivals and their British-born descendents show no desire to do that at all.
Then, just the other day was an even more direct Samizdata piece (which referred back to Solent's post), Immigration and the libertarian written by an Irish guy:
Name an issue of the day and I can give you the answer. Sluggish growth? Privatise, lower taxes and de-regulate. Busy roads? Privatise. Inflation? Abolish the Bank of England or re-introduce the Gold Standard, or, er… privatise the Bank of England. OK, some issues are not quite that easy but usually they are. Until we get to immigration. Because if libertarianism means open borders then libertarianism is wrong because open borders are a disaster.
Most commentators and almost all libertarians regard immigration as a purely economic question. A lot of anti-immigration types tend to concentrate on crime or the pressure that immigration puts on state-dominated sectors of the economy like health, education and housing. For libertarians the response is obvious: get the state out of health, education and housing. And drugs for that matter which are responsible for a huge amount of crime.
He thinks it ultimately means war and uses his Irish upbringing in the Republic of Ireland but close to the border with Northern Ireland, as an example:
My grandmother’s neighbours were Catholic. I used to play with their children when I visited my grandmother in the holidays. How was that possible if Protestants and Catholics are supposed to despise one another? Was there some sort of Gaelic Exceptionalism at play? No. It was because in the Republic we Protestants were only 3% of the population. Probably lower by now. We didn’t count. We weren’t a threat to anyone. There are advantages to being part of a small minority. Meanwhile, 15 miles away, the IRA were happily killing Protestants for the crime of being, well, Protestants. Or – more accurately – British. Why? Because there was a war on. Why was there a war on? Because the Irish population of Ulster was about 40%.
He admits that his ancestors came as conquerors (I assume he's talking about England's use of British and Scottish Protestant immigrants to colonise Ireland), but also concludes that it doesn't make much difference.
But Ulster history has got that one covered too. Before 1800, Belfast was an exclusively Protestant/British town. As its industries expanded they needed more labour and so the Irish were drawn in from outside. This may have worked out just fine for the industrialists but it did not work out well for anybody else. The first riots took place in the 1850s.
And finally he again draws the distinction between non-white immigrants and the Muslim immigrants of recent years:
Along with the ethnic and cultural differences there is another: you cannot be Muslim and British. It’s one or the other. There may be an ethnic dimension to the British nation but there is also a philosophical one. There are such things as British values. And I can’t think of one – whether it be freedom of religion or women’s rights – that Islam supports.
In the past I'd have been sure that the solid old culture of British tolerance and liberalism would have steadily melted down traditional Islam. But when you have a combination of large numbers of Islamic immigrants and a Leftist trashing of all things British I don't think it works any longer. That there are some 130 sharia courts across Britain is an indicator not of immigration but colonisation.
Apologies about the editing.
two worthwhile articles that make you an unusual part of the gaslighting going on about the nature of UK imigration and the problems it causes Peter.
I lived near Slough and had kids in school around there for 20 years. I could see and read with my own eyes what was going on. I saw the grooming happen to a friend of my daughters. The research you cite in your post is simply gaslighting whataboutism research by left wing academics. Reading the report itself does not make anything like the same conclusion you make "There is a limited amount of research looking at the ethnicity of perpetrators of
group-based CSE, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions about whether or not
certain ethnicities are over-represented in this type of offending. What research
there is tends to rely on poor-quality data, with issues in a number of areas:
• Data in this space is reliant on ‘known’ or identified offending behaviour,
therefore limiting our understanding of group-based CSE in its entirety.
• Law enforcement data can be particularly vulnerable to bias, in terms of those
cases that come to the attention of the authorities, and this can impact on the
generalisability of such data.46 This can also lead to greater attention being paid
to certain types of offenders, making that data more readily identified and
recorded.47
• Police-collected data on ethnicity uses broad categories and requires the police
to assign an ethnicity rather than it being self-reported by offenders. Data is
therefore not always accurate; Berelowitz et al. (2012) observed cases of
offenders being initially classed as ‘Asian’ but actually coming from other
backgrounds, such as White British or Afghan." Afghan yes of course.
"CEOP (2011) undertook a data collection with police forces, children’s
services and specialist providers from the voluntary sector, looking at those
allegedly involved in ‘street grooming’ and CSE. Data was returned on
approximately 2,300 possible offenders, but approximately 1,100 were
excluded from analysis due to a lack of basic information. In the remaining
1,200 cases, ethnicity data was unknown for 38% of them. Where data was
available 30% of offenders were White, while 28% were Asian. "
But the % of Asian in the population is nothing like that of whites
A better analysis is here.
https://www.opindia.com/2023/07/uk-grooming-gangs-part-1-minor-girls-groomed-raped-by-muslim-predators-across-cities-as-authoritie-ignored/
The police treated vulnerable young girls as prostitutes rather than exploited children and social services and police ignored them because they did not want to appear islamophobic. Wake up.
Douglas Murray stating an unfashionable truth about the riots. Caused by too much unskilled immigration to juice GDP growth without benefit to citizens.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-unfashionable-truth-about-the-riots/
Ayaan HIrsi Ali also very good on the subject of two tier kier and the gaslighting you choose to support and be part of. Asian Grooming Gangs are a real problem in the UK despite the relatively smaller part of the population they are.
Did you read the home office report you cite or simply take the misinformational gaslighting about the results as broadcast in the Guardian. The report was almost replicated by the executive summary which simply said they could not agree. the data in the detail of this report is clear. Asian grooming gangs exist and are a serious issue. That is not misinformation
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/944206/Group-based_CSE_Paper.pdf
https://www.restorationbulletin.com/p/two-tier-keir
Post a Comment