Talk:Modern immigration to the United Kingdom: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
Contrary to expectations, the largest group of illegal immigrants were found to be American nationals who had entered the UK on tourist visas and had overstayed. |
Contrary to expectations, the largest group of illegal immigrants were found to be American nationals who had entered the UK on tourist visas and had overstayed. |
||
above unsigned comment made 8 April 06 |
Revision as of 20:28, 8 April 2006
![]() | Modern immigration to the United Kingdom was the UK Collaboration of the Fortnight for the fortnight starting on December 5, 2004. For details on improvements made to the article, see Past Collaborations and History |
A question of terminology
Asylum Seeker is nearly always used in a, at best, negative and, at worst, outright pejorative sense. The correct term is refugee (for which there is a WP entry). Refugees in turn should be distinguished from economic migrants. Let's head lazy tabloid thinking off at the pass, eh?
- I've changed the heading Refugees ('Asylum seekers') to Refugees and asylum seekers. First because asylum seekers and refugees are not the same thing at all, and second becuase the quote marks make it seem like asylum seeker is a slang term or something
- An asylum seeker is anyone who is applying for refugee status, and will inevitably include people who do not qualify (and will become a failed asylum seeker). A refugee on the other hand is a person whose asylum claim has been accepted - ie they have been found to be fleeing persecution. It is important to keep the distinction between these two groups, which the tabloids frequently use interchangeably! MyNameIsClare talk 13:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Immigration Controversy
I've removed a statement in the introductory paragrapg about immigration causing controversy. If people wish to make such a statement, then it better put in a specific section with evidence. --NeilTarrant 20:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
United Kingdom?
Surely this should be the Islands of Great Britain and Ireland. As the UK a faily modern invention?
- Not really. Although the beakers and celts made it to Ireland afaik the Romans didn't, neither did the Anglo Saxons (although they certainly raided it), the vikings raided Ireland though didn't establish any kind of control there, neither did the normans and by the time we get to the huguenots we're well on the way to Britain becoming the UK. The article is currently heavily weighted in the direction of history rather than modern day, because I certainly don't know anything about immigration as a contemporary topic and I get the impression that neither do other editors currently inolved in this cotw. But with a full compliment the balance should be fairly even between the two. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:16, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Dublin is a viking city, the extent of roman contact with island is still a bit of a mystery I beleive. The UK does include part of Ireland ATM.--Jirate 01:28, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
- I think the main thrust of my point is that the article when finished is supposed to convey modern immigration to the UK as well as historically. It doesn't at the moment because nobody has contributed anything towards the law section yet. Otherwise for what you're suggesting you'd require two separate articles, one of the history, and one for contemporary immigration, which kind of cancels out the collaboration of the week. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Effects of Immigration on British Culture
This is a bit of a 'stream of conciousness' post!
- 20thC eating habits - Chinese - Curries etc. Note most (as in 90%) UK curry houses are actually Bangladeshi run, not Indian per se.
- tolerence - UK more integrated than many european counties - possible explanations?
- The Arts - Chris Ofili (sp?) Anish Kapoor (sp?) etc.
- French Huguenot Silkworkers
Martin TB 23:14, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Look in Culture of the United Kingdom if you get stuck. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Population of racial minorities
The article might want to provide information on the size and growth of racial minorities. How large is the Asian population, Afro-Carib population, etc.? How fast are they growing? How does this compare to the general population?
Stuff moved from Briton
The Briton article had a lot of material also covered here, and in far poorer form with no references, so it has been removed. About the only thing worth saving was some information about Celt/Anglo-Saxon genetic evidence, which I've just inserted. References:
- BBC article on genetic evidence supporting a Welsh-Irish-Basque connection
- BBC article on why some Welsh men are not directly descended in the male line from Germanic men
- Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration
Long history of immigration, or of invasion?
Is it really accurate to say, as the article currently begins, "The United Kingdom has had a long history of immigration, from the Beaker people of the 3rd millennium BC, to the waves of invasions by the Roman Empire, the Anglo-Saxons and Normans"? Are these instances of immigration, or is it reasonable to make a distinction between immigration and invasion? To say nothing of the fact that this train of thought seems discordant with the additions an anon made to the second paragraph today. - Nat Krause 16:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- I have to say I feel that second paragraph needs to be made more npov: scientists come up with this stuff fairly regularly and I'd insist on more than just one reference befrore integrating that sort of thing into the article. Saying that invasion is a form of immigration, because the invading (settling) forces bring with them new cultures, styles etc that alter the fabric of the native society. If we ignore the invading forces altogether we end up with a short article that leaps from the Beaker people to the Hugenots to 20th century colonial settlement. I think invasions are important to keep in the article. -- Francs2000 | Talk
21:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
It seems that the Celtic invasion didnt happen. Probably this was just a culture change.
Post war economy boom?
Did Britian's economy really "boom in the post war period"? I don't get it, I've always viewed the History of Britian following WW2 as going down hill for the latter years of the decade, remember the government was almost bankrupt? still on rations into the fifties, Is that an "economic boom"? Surely this wasn't a "boom" in the American postwar sense of the word.
A question on spelling
The use of US-English spelling formation in a UK related article is not only highly innapropriate, offensive, and incorect by anyone not from the USA, but also in violation of wikipedia recommendations. To every native and 2nd language speaker of English on the Globe not from the USA, this article is spelt wrong. Wikipedia recommends that articles pertaining to all Commonwealth countries use International Commonwealth standard English, and only US related articles use US formations. Articles written about non Anglo-related topics are up for grabs, but it is also polite to use Commonwealth standard as this is what a person from taht area would be taught if he or she were to take an English course. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.254.225.5 (talk • contribs) .
- Yes, it is Wikipedia standard to use British spelling for articles about Britain. It is also standard procedure to post new comments on the bottom of talk pages, and to sign them. Go ahead and change this article's spelling. -Willmcw 23:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Illegal Immigration
Removed the following text as it requires a source and evidence. Note that US Citizens do not figure highly in removal or refusal figures so what evidence supports the following assertion?
Contrary to expectations, the largest group of illegal immigrants were found to be American nationals who had entered the UK on tourist visas and had overstayed.
above unsigned comment made 8 April 06