Born in the UK?

[Pothole]

saaby93 said:

Steady


Would 29.1% be similar across other countries?
Remember that's an average so with Blyth on 5% there may be other places much higher than 29.1%

I remember this from the Times of Malta earlier in the year:

Times of Malta said:

The latest data shows 22.2% of all deliveries were to non-Maltese women, compared with 8% ten years ago and 4.9% in 2000. On the contrary, the number of babies born to Maltese women has fallen from 3,511 in 2007 to 3,364 in 2017.

Many Maltese are filthy racists and, bizarrely considering they're all mongrels anyway, vehement, shouty advocates of ethnic purity, so you can imagine the comments on the newspaper's website...

[Pothole]

saaby93 said:

Just found this link
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50782411
showing that for Blyth
5% of live births in 2018 were to non-UK mothers. England's average is 29.1%


29.1% of kids in England are born to non-UK mothers?

It's gone up slightly

The percentage of live births to non-UK born women in the UK was 25.3% in 2013

[PMacanGTS]

Crumpet said:

Middle-class, white and British was definitely the minority.

That’s always been a minority. I suspect you are working class but consider yourself middle class, because the vast majority of the working class have been convinced they are middle class.

And if you really want to get into it, there is no real middle class. It’s a fictional title used to divide the working class.

[Rare]

Terminator X said:

Immigration will never stop or even slow to a trickle as the Govt are hooked on the taxes imho. Yep MP's are all liars.

No or very little investment in infrastructure though is a problem already looming large and will get worse eg 6k houses planned in our area but fk all road improvements

TX.

What taxes ??

[Crumpet]

PMacanGTS said:

Crumpet said:

Middle-class, white and British was definitely the minority.

That’s always been a minority. I suspect you are working class but consider yourself middle class, because the vast majority of the working class have been convinced they are middle class.

And if you really want to get into it, there is no real middle class. It’s a fictional title used to divide the working class.

Is this where I’m supposed to get upset because you’ve called me working class? It doesn’t really matter whether I’m working class, middle class or have no class (clearly some people think that given my original comments on the OP). I work hard, don’t commit crimes, keep myself to myself, don’t inflict misery on others, do bits (not enough) for the community and pay stloads of tax. Unlike the underclass I, perhaps wrongly, referred to in my first post.

I realise now that ‘Underclass’ is actually fairly well defined and what I originally should have said was just ‘scumbags’, or some other suitable term to describe people who swear at staff and cause misery to others. It seems you can be a member of the underclass and not be a scumbag, although in this case I’m pretty sure all those scumbags were members of the underclass.

You’re absolutely right, though. These days the middle class, whether real or fictional, could be said to encapsulate most of the working class - all the decent, hard working people of the country, basically. My original intention, actually.

Anyway, sorry for bringing this back up, I realise the discussion has moved on and I’m banging on about class again and digging more holes.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Whether a person is sweeping the factory floor, or directing the company in the boardroom, they are both doing a days work. So at what point does someone who does a days work, cease to be a worker, and change into something else?
Same applies in hospitals, a person keeping the corridors clean, or a surgeon both do a days work,
Surely a worker is someone who works?

[rscott]

KrissKross said:

Countdown said:

Apologies if this is stating the obvious but not all "Indigenous people of the UK, of all colours and creeds" will have been paying into the system for all or some of their working lives. The average indigenous person is a net recipient of public funds rather than a net contributor.

I agree with this point, but would you also agree the immigration process should only allow people into the UK that are at least "net contributors" to our state system as a minimum requirement. Which = around £40k annual salary.

What if we need immigrants to fill vacancies which don't pay over £40k? Like the 12,500 nurses Boris has said he'll be hiring.

[NRS]

Countdown said:

I’m not sure how that would work in practice. Would they need to have an existing job offer before they were allowed to enter the country? What happens if they lose their £40k job after 1 day/ 6 months/ 5 years? Do they get deported or would they be allowed to remain? What happens if they’ve gained a British family whilst they’re here?

Putting a £40k threshold on immigrants will be great for salaries of hotel staff. It might have an impact on room rates though......

That's surely one of the big things with Brexit? Most people are on "poor" salaries (average or below) due to the big skew in higher wages to a few people. Therefore with open immigration in the EU for many people this often is the less qualified coming to the richer countries, putting pressure on jobs (more applicants) and services (more competition for houses etc). Therefore people's costs are pushed up, but salaries are pushed down or kept low. This would then be part of the reason behind the growing wealth gap, and lack of inflation despite huge QE etc.

Therefore, when these people are a majority it's not too surprising that there is a push back, even if the overall net gain to the economy is good. Of course one of the reason for immigration being somewhat encouraged is to get skills needed, and to reduce the a big change in the working/retired ratio that we know is happening so that pensions/healthcare can be funded without massive tax increases. But of course that's more than most people look at, rather focusing on the job/housing situation as they are more obvious.

[vonuber]

Blimey, all my four grandparents were non-native UK citizens when my parents were born.

The horror.

[justice.]

Lord Marylebone said:

Countdown said:

Lord Marylebone said:

Dr Jekyll said:

KrissKross said:

If I and my wife had a baby in China, would it make our baby Chinese?

As the (Irish born) Duke of Wellington said, 'Being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse.'.

Quite.

It all depends on what weighting you place on the legalities/paperwork Vs the practicalities/upbringing.

A child could be born in China, live in China, have Chinese passport and officially be a Chinese citizen, but in reality be as ‘British’ as Afternoon Tea.

So, in the context of the OP, the fact that X% of children were born to "non-UK born mothers" is meaningless, because they could be "as British as afternoon tea......"

Not necessarily. It could go either way

If a British born couple raised a child in China, the child may end up as British as afternoon Tea... or the child may decide it wants to adopt Chinese culture and values as it grows up.

If a Chinese born couple raise a child in Britain, the child may be brought up with Chinese culture and values... or the child may decide it wants to adopt British culture and values as it grows up.

Either of these situations will be influenced by both the parents and the society.

Or the child may choose both and enjoy the benefits of being immersed in two fantastic cultures. I know, it’s a far out theory..