80% of population growth from immigration

[GreenMirror]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45281796

EU net migration was 87,000 in the year to the end of March 2018, returning to a level last seen in 2012, according to Office for National Statistics data.

Overall net migration, the difference between the number of people coming to live in the UK for at least 12 months and those leaving, was 270,000.

[meridian]

maybe we could blame those unwilling to discuss it as well? People should be outraged and push their MPs.

But yes the Government had a big part of it. Once freedom of movement ends they won't be able to hide the other migration behind it. I suspect most people would like to see pre 1997 levels with little or no net migration.

Why should people be outraged? That implies your state of mind to be able to discuss things rationally to start with.

Migrationwatch wishes to include children born in the U.K. to immigrants as immigrants themselves. At what point, and how many generations, does it take for an immigrant to be British? 1? 2? 3? Never?

The government’s not just a big part of it, it’s the only part. They make the laws, their departments enforce them. Freedom of movement of course works both ways, so you might find that if Brits find it harder to move to the EU then net migration may not change all that much.

[d000hg]

Immigrants and their UK born children.

The latter distorts things somewhat.

[Bean]

Why should people be outraged? That implies your state of mind to be able to discuss things rationally to start with.

Migrationwatch wishes to include children born in the U.K. to immigrants as immigrants themselves. At what point, and how many generations, does it take for an immigrant to be British? 1? 2? 3? Never?

The government’s not just a big part of it, it’s the only part. They make the laws, their departments enforce them. Freedom of movement of course works both ways, so you might find that if Brits find it harder to move to the EU then net migration may not change all that much.

3, looks like the most probable answer, given the usage of the term 2nd generation immigrant by various outlets etc...

In the UK: ‘Third generation migrants

[meridian]

3, looks like the most probable answer, given the usage of the term 2nd generation immigrant by various outlets etc...

In the UK: ‘Third generation migrants

3? Seems arbitrary. Why not “the point at which they obtain British Citizenship”? Legally, under the laws of the United Kingdom implemented by the parliamentary representatives voted in by the people of the U.K., this is when someone is British, no?

[WTFH]

3? Seems arbitrary. Why not “the point at which they obtain British Citizenship”? Legally, under the laws of the United Kingdom implemented by the parliamentary representatives voted in by the people of the U.K., this is when someone is British, no?

No, because then MigrationWatch would have to exclude children of soldiers, civil servants and consular staff born outside the UK.

But still, we've now got Young Vet & Old Vet in the argument, so don't expect any direct response to a question, rather expect the answer to be a change of tack to avoid giving a factual answer.

[meridian]

No, because then MigrationWatch would have to exclude children of soldiers, civil servants and consular staff born outside the UK.

But still, we've now got Young Vet & Old Vet in the argument, so don't expect any direct response to a question, rather expect the answer to be a change of tack to avoid giving a factual answer.

The “3 generations” thing is interesting. Assuming 30 years to a generation, if we go back that far then we’re before 1949.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject

Before 1949, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the English and later British Crown was, based on common law, an English and later British subject. To be a subject required only that a person be born in any territory under the sovereignty of the Crown.

Some they giveth, some they taketh away.....

[WTFH]

The “3 generations” thing is interesting. Assuming 30 years to a generation, if we go back that far then we’re before 1949.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject



Some they giveth, some they taketh away.....

If it's 2 generations, then we're only talking 60 years, so a long time after 1949, and a long time after Windrush (for those with short term memory, the government recently kicked out several Windrush people because the government deliberately destroyed their paperwork).
2 gens would be 1958. So a lady who arrives in the UK as a child in 1958, and subsequently grows up as a British citizen, then gives birth in the UK to a British citizen. That child is seen as an immigrant and a problem to those at MigrationWatch and those who believe the propaganda.

[Bean]

3? Seems arbitrary. Why not “the point at which they obtain British Citizenship”? Legally, under the laws of the United Kingdom implemented by the parliamentary representatives voted in by the people of the U.K., this is when someone is British, no?

No, because then MigrationWatch would have to exclude children of soldiers, civil servants and consular staff born outside the UK.

But still, we've now got Young Vet & Old Vet in the argument, so don't expect any direct response to a question, rather expect the answer to be a change of tack to avoid giving a factual answer.

Did either of you read the article supplied with my concise answer?
Do you not agree with the reasoning in the article?

A direct response was provided, with a link to an article, which explains the rationale behind the answer.

It's fine if you don't agree with that, but don't go crying about having no direct answer, when you have been given one...



Ps. I thought it was Bean and Old Bean, is it now Young Vet & Old Vet?
C'mon, at least be consistent when trying to label others you disagree with

[meridian]

80% of population growth from immigration

Did either of you read the article supplied with my concise answer?
Do you not agree with the reasoning in the article?

A direct response was provided, with a link to an article, which explains the rationale behind the answer.

It's fine if you don't agree with that, but don't go crying about having no direct answer, when you have been given one...



Ps. I thought it was Bean and Old Bean, is it now Young Vet & Old Vet?
C'mon, at least be consistent when trying to label others you disagree with

The article is an opinion piece, I gave it all the weight of that. My initial response was one based on law.

This quote in the piece is telling, though (one of the final summary paragraphs):

However, in spite of some discrimination, technically speaking, the third generation have not migrated, and are thus not migrants.

Technically speaking, the first generation born here (is that the second generation?) have not migrated, and are thus not migrants.