Immigration has been a concern for many, especially in the British community. UKIP, the highest beneficiary of the hard immigration punches landed on the Britain main parties as a content of address has been expected to change their view on immigration if politicians can say them words of assurance by highlighting the improving rates of assimilation and integration as observed recently in the British society.
The Eric Kaufmann’s YouGov/Birkbeck/policy Exchange survey gathering has argued that this in itself does not create an obstruction to the required immigration control but it proffers a partial alleviation for what appear a cultural problem rather than economic.
In a senior Labor figure’s hard-hitting piece compiled by Fabrians’ reports, a pollster named James Morris highlighted that labor must concern itself with the genuine worries all British seem to have about immigration. He mentioned that instead, a majority of the labor leaders continue to focus attention on the much easier terrain of public expenses and domestic planning.Jeremy Corbyn once talks up the immigration impact fund and Sadiq Kahn in a recent article also voiced his concerns about housing planning and laws.
In this regard, academic researchers have since considered their ideas as workable but misplaced priorities that will have less or no impact at all on the majority’s view of immigration. They have since suggested that cultural, not economic motivations are the areas of concentration for lovers of lower immigration.
Immigration was considered to have stripped away illusions in the mind of many white Britons with a feeling that their group is more or less the same as Britain’s. These ethnic related issues have forced those who respect their cultural traditions, myths, and memories to have a distinct view of immigration.
David Cameron’s comments about immigration have also drawn responses of a centralized brutishness based in common values and institutions from Gordon Brow, a politician, but it was believed a different question should be asked in what it means to be a British, rather than what it means to be a white British in an awe of migration.
Eric Kaufmann has identified that away groups form and intensify is by accepting, integrating and assimilating those that wish to be part of them. He then identified that the rampant intermarriages between the members of the ethnic minority, particularly of Europe and those of mixed race with the white British majority is as a result of the domineering ethnicity, courtesy of the inbuilt advantages and influence of such groups over the mainstream national culture.
He related nations to rivers where one can never put his foot in the same water many times. He added that the immigration scheme in the country has experienced its ups and downs but in vein with the English language, Britain’s way of life (culture) is only superficially affected by outside influences. He opined that all his analogies explain why a vast majority of the children of European immigrants to Britain have become white British.
He referred to history where people of mixed races from France, Jews, and other black migrants in those days, who share the same ancestors with white British Empire melted into them and grow faster than all the minority groups. Statistics presented the situation as 80 of every 100 marrying whites.
He expected that in the long run from now, he wouldn’t be surprised if the said minority groups are totally masked in the majority, fading foreign identities in the process.
He also cited examples of Boris Johnson and Peter Mandelson and claimed Britain shaped its migrants, rather than migrants shaped Britain.
Though he concluded that it might be hard his kind of studies shape people’s mind about immigration but he didn’t fidget to make his point that immigration concerns go beyond the economy.