Talk:Modern immigration to the United Kingdom

message: 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)
thread_title:  A question of terminology 

message: 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)
replies: text: Does the Brexit vote count as evidence? Ttulinsky 20:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Immigration Controversy

message: 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)
replies: text: Look in Culture of the United Kingdom if you get stuck. -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 23:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of Immigration on British Culture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: While I agree that the second paragraph should express a more neutral point of view, I do not agree that multiple sources are required for a point of view to be expressed. I do not think this is a requirement of the verifiability policy. In order to get a more neutral perspective any alternative points of view should be expressed in addition to the current POV, and of course these should also be referenced. Alun 08:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Long history of immigration, or of invasion?

message: 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.
:Um, wasn't it Harold Macmillan in the 50s who said most of our people have never had it so good? Alun 15:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post war economy boom? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A question on spelling 

message: 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  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.94.183.28 (talk • contribs) 
I've heard that statement made about Americans before, and also Australians. It may well be true, but I can't find a reliable reference to support it. Interestingly the largest group of illegal immigrants in Australia are from Britain . Cordless Larry 17:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal Immigration 

message: Copied from my talk page, for Ukbn2. OK, find your source, it needs to be verifiable, you can follow the link to find out more, but it means that it should be from a published source that other people can check, like a book or newspaper article or website. It should also be from a reliable source, so not ramblings on a chatroom or someone's personal website, but something that people would generally consider reliable. You need to cite your source, like in the references section (see here for more info). Then, after the section you want to reference write this what you write here will appear in the references section. There's more info about footnotes here. Hope this is of help. Alun 15:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to cite sources

message: I think the scope of this article is too large. I would suggest two articles, one containing information on Immigration to the United Kingdom, this would include only migration dating from the introduction of migration law, and focus on modern immigration. The other article could concentrate on migration up to say 1875. This could focus on the debate over how much evidence there is for Celtic migration or Anglo-Saxon migration, and things like the settlement of the Danelaw. The academic debate surrounding cultural diffusion and mass migration could be dealt with here. For example there seems to be more and more opinion in the academic world that the postulated Germanic invasions during the Sub-Roman period may not have occured at all, and the amount of immigration may have been quite small, see Sub-Roman Britain#The_Anglo-Saxon_migration. It also occurs to me that the UK didn't exist untill the Acts of Union in 1707, so much of immigration refered to in this article was really to Great Britain before the UK existed. What's the general consensus on this? Alun 17:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest splitting the page at the 1914 Aliens Restriction Act, as this was the first time any real restriction was placed on immigration. Dave 18:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, sounds like a good plan. Let's see what other people think. Alun 04:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd go with the original suggestion as the history of legislation reaches back to 1793  Weggie 19:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So if it gets split just after the Huguenots section and before the Historical immigration (1875 to the modern day) section. I would suggest some mention of the 1793 legislation in the introduction to the Immigration to the United Kingdom article to emphasise that it is about immigration in the modern sense, with laws etc. Let's wait a week or so longer to see if anyone has any objections before proceeding. Alun 09:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split of article suggestion

message: This section needs a reference, broadcast media cannot be used as a source as they are not verifiable, we need a published source. 
Please see the appropriate policy page here. Alun 04:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is an out-dated concept - we are "broadcasting" in front of things that look like televisions. electronic media IS verifiable if it is recorded.Ukbn2 12:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not verifiable unless it is accessible, any book or newspaper can be checked, but a broadcast from last week cannot readily be checked. Is the radio programme available for download from the BBC website? I know that they do maintain some archives. You should take a look at the reliable sources guideline, it only mentions published sources. But I agree, if broadcast media are readily accessible, and so can be verified, then I don't see why they shouldn't be used for verification. Alun 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion of the EU

message: It may be my immagination, but I have noticed some rather intollerant and biased edits recently in this article. Maybe it's just my immagination but this is certainly not the place to express political and/or neo-fascist opinions. It is also not a forum for promoting the BNP, a tiny minority party that IMHO is so small that it doesn't even warrant a mention based on the neutrality policy. Far more relevant for example is the failiure of the Tories under Michael Howard in 2005, who did have an extreme policy on immigration (he was assisted by Lynton Crosby who had helped John Howard win in Australia by using racism/immigration as an issue). The Tories increased their proportion of the vote by less than 1% between 2001 and 2005. I am somewhat concerned about this trend and am wondering if we should make some sort of request to get the page protected somehow. Alun 09:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you about the fact that some people want to politicise this page, but, compared with most pages, the amount of vandalism is very small. Instead of protecting, which would be an option if there was a more consistant flow of vandals, all we can do is revert the edits which we percieve to detract from the article. Having said that, we can't fall into the trap of embedding our own biases into it (but I don't think that has been happening). Dave 10:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right, we need neutrality and verifiability, I'm all for articles being unbiased, but some of the edits recently have served no other purpose than to promote exclusively extremist POVs, and have attempted to shift the balance of the article in favour of a less tollerant POV. It is not the purpose of this article to articulate the policies of a single party, let alone one with such miniscule support as the BNP. As I have said before, if we want to have a section on the importance of immigration as a British political issue, it would be more accurate to discuss it in terms of how it failed to significantly increase Tory party support between 2001 and 2005, which makes it a non-issue really. I think the British press (which are IMHO mainly very right wing in the UK, with a few notable exceptions) has become somewhat hysterical over this issue in the recent past, which has raised the profile of the neo-nazi BNP recently, it's probably little more than a blip, when the press move on to their next bete noir it will be forgotten. I am worried that without constant vigilance some of the edits might become permanent, though I do have this page on my watch list. I point out the edits today by User:Harrysheldon  that I reverted and our previous discussion about Future repatriation, this section stayed in the article for some time. There have also been some unverified edits regarding failed asylum seekers. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I am concerned that the article may be drawing the attention of people with  an agenda, and could become the target of a conserted campaign of racist edits. I think the more enlightened editors of the article need to be a a bit extra vigilent in the near future. Alun 17:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some bias creeping in?

message: particularly in the traditions of sound systems and celebrity DJs.
Does anybody have a better way of rephrasing this? It almost sounds like a David Brent comment.
Im not aware of any Jamaican made sound systems.
What about?
"particularly in the influence of British music"
Ukbn2 18:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it does look odd. How about particularly with regard to music and celebrity DJs? Alun 04:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact of immigration on society and culture-music

message: Removed paragraphs with unsourced material as per wiki guidelines: The Week is unverifiable as there are several publications of this name. Also, got flamed when I tried to tidy up which was nice since its not my material. Will replace with a sourced piece in a couple of days if no feedback.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Weggie (talk • contribs) 
According to an article in The Week, 27th May 2006, there are 204,895 Poles registered for work in the UK and pay tax. The amount of unregistered Poles working in the shadow economy is probably as large. The Poles are relatively dispersed throughout Britain but do have some concentrations making up a sixth of the population in Jersey and Crewe.
::A sixth?? Sorry, but I live here, and the Polish population of Crewe is 6%, about 3,000, not a sixth (16.666%). Also I'm a bit doubtful about the assertion concerning Jersey, since even we Brits don't have freedom of movement to set up home there - the States would have something to say about it. -- Arwel (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are refering to me, then it was not my intention to flame you, sorry if I caused offence, not my intention at all. I was just requesting proper verification from the person who made the edit. I agree about removing the material untill we can get verification. Alun 14:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced Removal

message: There is a terminology dispute ongoing which primarily involves U.S. participants, but might benefit from the involvement of people knowledgable about immigration politics in other countries.  Usage on Wikipedia is inconsistent between undocumented immigrant, illegal immigrant, and illegal alien.  A central guideline should be adopted.  A proposed one, with different versions recommending "illegal" and "undocumented," is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigration). Kalkin 18:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also noticed that there are legal inaccuracies. However, an undocumented immigrant under UK immigration law is an illegal immigrant. --Panzer71 (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  terminology 

message: "Other high-profile areas such as entertainment and sport are also very inclusive. Many leading broadcasters and scientists are from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. In music, the impact of black culture has been extensive. British music has been transormed from its rather staid 1950's image to a vibrant and colourful mix in 2006."
This paragraph sounds like an anti-British-culture statement because it states that ethnic British music has done absolutely nothing since the 1950s. This is an outright lie, when one doesn't consider that so much of the English-speaking world pop-culture and music comes directly from the UK. The phenomena on the "British Invasion" in the U.S. and Canada come to mind and names like The Rolling Stones or Billy Idol surely can't be forgotten.
I will remove the last sentence.. but has anybody heard of British pop music with extensive African presence? The only one I can think of is the Spice Girls, but there was only 1 black member and there was certainly no African beats or influences portrayed in their music.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Andem (talk • contribs) 
:It's not an anti-British statement. The problem with British music has been transormed from its rather staid 1950's image to a vibrant and colourful mix in 2006. is that it is an unsupported point of view, points of view should only be expressed if there is a supporting citation and if the other different points of view are also included (as long as they exist and can be supported by citations). Ideally we need a source that supports this statement, and then another that supports your pov. That way we give both points of view, and anyone that reads the article can draw their own conclusions. Alun 05:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ethnic British music ......much of the English-speaking world pop-culture and music comes directly from the UK. This comment of yours doesn't make sense to me. Just because it comes from the UK doesn't make it ethnically British. I don't think any pop music can be considered ethnically-British, isn't nearly all popular music derived from the Blues and Jazz of the thirties, fourties and fifties, and aren't these ultimately African-American styles of music? I think the best one can say is that British folk music (maybe people like Jethro Tull) are derived from ethnic-British music.Alun 05:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: has anybody heard of British pop music with extensive African presence The article didn't state an African presence, it stated an impact from Black culture.  You seem to be (possibly deliberately) ignoring musical styles like Ska and Reggae, are you disputing the West Indian origin of these styles? Or are you possibly forgetting that there are bands like UB40 and Madness etc. out there.Alun 05:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potentially Anti-British statement 

message: I have added the UK work permit page, generally as I have one and found it tough to find information on the governments site that made sense and clearly outlined what was required.
Actually I had trouble getting info from immgration service companies, they wanted money first than I would get answers.
The Immigration to the United Kingodm page mentions the work permit scheme but has no in depth information on the requirements etc for a UK work permit.
The company that I finally is the same company I have gotten the content for my page (permission was granted by their marketing manager). They were the only ones who spelt out the entire system to me and my HR manager, and were helpful without money.
There is a page for HSMP, so thought the same for work permits would be good as well.
The information will change as soon as the government has updated its agenda for the new tier 1/tier 2 visa scheme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chillfire (talk • contribs) 12:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the Uk work permit and Highly Skilled Migrant Programme pages should be merged into this article, in a shortened form. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and I don't think we need an article that is essentially providing immigration advice - as worthy as that is, Wikipedia isn't the place for it. I think we should follow the lead of Immigration to Australia and include brief information on the different schemes on the 'Immigration to...' page. Cordless Larry 11:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK work permit 

message: I think we need to remove information from this article that does not pertain to the UK. We need articles called Migrations to Great Britain (pre 1066) and Migrations to Great Britain (1066-1706) and Immigration to the United Kingdom. How can neolithic people have been migrating to the UK? The UK is a political entity, it didn't exist untill 300 years ago. Besides there's no real consensus of when or how or if there has been any significant migration to Great Britain since the paleolithic expansion. I think we need articles for the ancient migrations that deal with archaeology, written history genetic evidence etc and place the debates in their correct contexts. This article could then concentrate on immigration law and more contemporary ideas about immigration, which after all have very little similarity to those of ancient migrations. It would also free the pages for English people, Welsh people and Scottish people to be more about the people and the culture, and less about origins, because origins could be covered in the migration articles. Any thoughts? Alun 10:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - this makes sense to me. It's also covertly biased to include all  the ancient migrations on this page because it suggests that since there always has been migration we needn't get too worked up about it. Although that's a strong argument, it is made deceptively. I would favour one article for pre-1707 and one for post-1707. Andeggs 23:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have just finished a re-edit of the contemporary migration section and feel this would work well on a standalone page. Will go ahead and split in two when i have time. Andeggs 03:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pre-1922 material has now been moved to Immigration to the United Kingdom (until 1922). Thanks Andeggs 22:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting the page

message: I think this whole section should be scrapped. It seems to me to be far too rambling (and unverified) for Wikipedia. We probably do need a section on the Geographical settling patterns of migrants - but how can centuries of immigration ranging from African slaves to IT workers be summed up in "impact on society..."? Will heavily cut in the next few days if no-one objects. Andeggs 03:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact of immigration on society and culture 

message: Since when was it called the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? It never was. Certainly not in 1922. Sorry, it was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. White43 12:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The country name.... 

message: I think a mention should be made of Polish forced immigration in the immediate post war period of members of the Polish Armed Forces in the West. I'm speculating and it would need a source to confirm it but this probably also had an effect on the numbers of recent Polish migrants as it is much easier to emigrate to a country which already has a nucleus of fellow nationals as they can provide an informal network of support. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is worth a mention. I remember seeing the Polish-born figures from the 1951 census and there were over 162,000 then, making the Polish-born one of the largest foreign-born groups. This population had declined a lot by the 2001 census (because of deaths, onward migration to the US, return migration to Poland, etc.), but was still significant. This is a good source, as is Keith Sword's Formation of the Polish Community in Great Britain, 1939-1950, if you can find it. Cordless Larry 10:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Polish immigration

message: I suggest that Labour Party immigration scandal should be merged into this page - the subject in question doesn't merit a unique article. Please see discussion here.--Pondle (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we please suspend this merger proposal pending the outcome of the AfD? I'm minded to withdraw my opposition here if the outcome is keep. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I [ added] a brief sentence based on Andrew Neather's article. I was careful to add only the narrowest and best supported claim from that article. My previous involvement comes from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labour Party immigration scandal debate. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neather article 

message: The "Managed migration" section may need further updating for the change to the points-based immigration system and the UK Border Agency. Nurg (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Managed migration update 

message: why is Britain apparently more attractive to irregular immigrants than mainland Europe ? Is it that wages or benefits are more generous ( I doubt it)or perhaps detection is less likely ( no ID cards?) ? I never notice any mention of this phenomenon, particularly the bizarre situation in Calais, in either mainstream media or here either. Given that terrible hostel fire a few years ago, and what I understand to be the B&B policy of local councils, UK doesn't sound like a particularly attractive place to be "undocumented". But is it better than conditions in eg France or germany etc..? Grateful any response to CC me at my own Talk page, please Feroshki (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that part of the answer is that the "Calais phenomenon" is simply a more visible manifestation of irregular migration than other aspects of it. For example, when in the Schengen area, irregular migrants can move from country to country without having to pass through border controls. By contrast, if they try to move to the UK it is more difficult and hence attention is drawn to their attempts. The same goes for people attempting to get into Europe in the first place: people crossing the Mediterranean are more visible than those crossing from France to Germany, for instance. Other than that, if the UK is actually a more popular destination (I actually think that other countries such as Greece and Spain may have larger irregular populations), then I would suggest that it's to do with the low unemployment rate that existed for the last decade or more in the UK. This may have now changed with the recession. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting question. This is an issue rarely discussed in the UK press, but one which comes up often in France which has to deal with the consequences of large numbers of migrants using Calais as a transit point for the "eldorado" which the UK is perceived to be for them. This article explains that many would-be migrants speak some English, have relations in the UK and believe that they have more of a chance of being allowed to remain in the UK rather than France. There's also the fact that France has far more stringent controls on migrants, both at the borders as well as within the country. Furthermore, to get almost anything in France (a job, bank account, housing etc) an individual will be required to provide a number of ID documents. In the UK, the only controls are on the borders and there are little to no paperwork requirements. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Calais: what's the attraction?

message: These Immigration articles seem to focused on the British isles like there was no immigration from the isles to Europe, or other European countries immigrating to neighboring countries in Europe, NONSENCE, these are pathetic articles, what happened to neutrality why aren't their articles like British immigration to Europe, or German migration to France, it's all pointed at the British isles which is unfair.109.154.8.185 (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are equivalent articles to this one for a number of other European countries, including Immigration to Germany and Immigration to Spain. There is also a specific article on British migration to Spain, although we could probably do with more of these type of articles given the significant British populations in several other European countries. You could always help out by starting such an article! Cordless Larry (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this crap 

message: I found the following source of information about UK immigration from a blog on the guardian.co.uk web site:
* Guardain Datablog: Immigration to the UK: the statistics
the data is compiled under this google spreadsheet: here
though the post's author doesn't cite his sources.
Bouktin (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immigration data source from guardian.co.uk 

message: the total immigration and emigration number is put under the eu section. even despite knowing the real numbers this led me to believe for a while that this was eu numbers, higher than i thought. somebody who is unaware of the actual facts may not look long enough to realise the mistake.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.201.152.26 (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted and now . Lamberhurst (talk) 07:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: weasel placement

message: This would be better than the current cut-off which seems arbitrary until I asked someone on a related talk page and they said it was because of the Irish independence. The article is already mainly about post-war immigration so why don't we just change the name to reflect this. The cut off would be much more sensible this way especially seeing as the 1922 is not currently mentioned anywhere in the article and neither is Irish Independence plus isn't it bad to have an arbitrary year in the title Move to Immigration to the United Kingdom since Irish Independence would be a better title than currently but it's not as good as the one I proposed at the start of my rambling. Eopsid (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe 1922 was chosen because the present configuration of the UK dates from then. It also ties in with the timeline in Historical immigration to Great Britain. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I probably should have said that if I made my proposed move Historical immigration to Great Britain would be changed to reflect it and plus your first sentence is just another way of saying after Irish Independence which is what I already said. Eopsid (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 1922 is nonetheless a more logical start date than 1945. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the case naming the article Immigration to the United Kingdom since Irish Independence would be better than the current one because after 1922 is more arbitrary than after Irish Independence and it was originally called 1922 to mean after Irish Independence. Eopsid (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Problematic as Irish independence is not a straightforward issue and, in any event, it was really the Anglo-Irish Treaty which led to GB and NI. Also, the proposed title would give too much prominence to Irish independence, whereas this is only relevant as a historical starting point. There could however be an argument for using 1948 as a starting point for "modern" immigration which is synonymous with the Windrush and the British Nationality Act 1948. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  But I don't want to just use a date because that is arbitrary. A specific event as the cut-off point like Irish Independence or World War 2 would in my view be preferential. Eopsid (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Immigration to the United Kingdom since World War 2 

message: The current title seems rather wordy and highlights an event that is not dealt with by the article. (The question of the free movement of the Irish to the UK might once have been an issue but is not even considered. Ireland doesn't even appear in the EU table.) So we either go back to the original title and explain in the header that only modern immigration is being considered, or use a modifier such as "modern" or "recent". I'm not fully convinced either way, but the word "recent" seems to beg the question, and "modern" can be explained by keeping the header note in place. So I propose the use of the term "Modern". Chris55 (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree but perhaps you should use the page move template:. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That template is for requested moves considered "controversial or potentially controversial". Does this come under that heading? The previous section suggests that not many are even interested. And I'm not requesting a move, simply proposing it. (A request seems to me to be asking someone else to do something.) Chris55 (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you could just go ahead and do it. The advantage with the template is that it provides a bulwark against other editors moving it again at their whim. See the discussion above where although I opposed the September 2013 move, the editor ignored my concerns and did it anyway. Immigration to the UK is a controversial topic. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well he moved it from "since 1922" to "since Irish independence", despite proposing "since World War 2". I'm cheered you're not opposing the move, but I'll let it wait for a day or so to see if other people have ideas. Chris55 (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Modern immigration to the United Kingdom 

message: This article's present structure is rather odd and I've tagged it as requiring restructuring. The "British Empire and the Commonwealth" is largely focused on post-WWII immigration, but then there is a second on post-war immigration later in the article, which also covers immigration from the Commonwealth. I think we need to decide whether the article should be organised into sections based on time periods, or based on the source regions of migration. My preference would be for the former. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article structure 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Modern immigration to the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070923144837/http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/History/6_1_History_of_immigration.pdf to http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/History/6_1_History_of_immigration.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080512084839/http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/managingborders/managingmigration/apointsbasedsystem/ to http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/managingborders/managingmigration/apointsbasedsystem/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080720043527/http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/managingborders/managingmigration/apointsbasedsystem/timetableforPBSlaunch to http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/managingborders/managingmigration/apointsbasedsystem/timetableforPBSlaunch
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090221012223/http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk:80/managingborders/managingmigration/apointsbasedsystem/howitworks to http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/managingborders/managingmigration/apointsbasedsystem/howitworks
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm an American reading this article without knowing much about UK immigration, except that it was a big issue in the recent Brexit vote. 
When reading the section "Contemporary immigration (1983 onwards)" it became clear that there had been a large increase in immigration, but it was not clearly stated that it occurred. Instead there are statements about forces that caused immigration and attempts to limit it. The graphs in "UK Migration from 1970.svg" make it clear there were big jumps in 1997 and 2004. 
But the text there just the statement 
:Non-European immigration rose significantly during the period from 1997
in the fourth paragraph of 
"Contemporary immigration (1983 onwards)" without any number or percentage for approximately a 200% jump, judging from the graphs.
The section "European Union" meanders around, discussing 
:The of the Four Freedoms of the European Union,... substantial Maltese and Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriot communities ... There are restrictions on the benefits ... 
Finally in the third paragraph:
:Research conducted by the Migration Policy Institute for the Equality and Human Rights Commission suggests that, between May 2004 and September 2009, 1.5 million workers migrated from the new EU member states to the UK
This does give numbers but softens them with the phrase "Research suggests",  gives but no percentage again, for a 50-100% jump, again softens the increase with the statement (not a "suggestion") that many have returned home, then at the bottom of the paragraph admits many  will probably come back.
This may simply be a case assuming that most [UK] readers know there was a large increase in immigration, and not bothering to state it, and going immediately to the resulting controversy. But the article should state the important facts before talking about the causes and reactions to them, and moreover it seems to be obscuring the fact of big increases in immigration.
Ttulinsky 20:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large Increases in 1997 and 2004 Seem Downplayed

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Modern immigration to the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926234444/http://www.24dash.com/news/57/12221/index.htm to http://www.24dash.com/news/57/12221/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070718031206/http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/cha/c10524.htm to http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/cha/c10524.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207074918/http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/new_europeans.pdf to http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/new_europeans.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215012227/http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/gateway/ to http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/gateway/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Modern immigration to the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308182913/http://www.identities.group.sheffield.ac.uk/pdfs/Briefing%20Somali%20Migration%20to%20the%20UK.pdf to http://www.identities.group.sheffield.ac.uk/pdfs/Briefing%20Somali%20Migration%20to%20the%20UK.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091202101114/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23760073-dont-listen-to-the-whingers---london-needs-immigrants.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23760073-dont-listen-to-the-whingers---london-needs-immigrants.do
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502050446/http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/working_in_the_uk/en/homepage/schemes_and_programmes/worker_registration.html to http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/working_in_the_uk/en/homepage/schemes_and_programmes/worker_registration.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120806163440/http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/corporate/pdf/1854800.pdf to http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/corporate/pdf/1854800.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111226123932/http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/corporate/pdf/1854822.pdf to http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/corporate/pdf/1854822.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108040541/http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk./workingintheuk/tier1/freshtalent/ to http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/workingintheuk/tier1/freshtalent/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929155339/http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/6353/aboutus/TTB_definition_draft_techni1.pdf to http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/6353/aboutus/TTB_definition_draft_techni1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090626085941/http://www.ippr.org/pressreleases/?id=2794 to http://www.ippr.org/pressreleases/?id=2794
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090626090020/http://www.ippr.org/pressreleases/?id=3483 to http://www.ippr.org/pressreleases/?id=3483
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041207045025/http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/content/ind/en/home.html to http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/content/ind/en/home.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615014648/http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/lawandpolicy/immigrationrules/ to http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/lawandpolicy/immigrationrules/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/05/scotlands-dirty-little-secret-were-as-anti-immigration-as-england/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Cordless Larry (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Stacked graphs are well known to be subject to misinterpretation, especially when the topic has political or emotional associations. It seems to me that a side-by-side presentation would be more illuminating, as I have shown here. The big problem with it, I recognise, is that the total is not easily visible. Is there a way to have the best of both worlds? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: * No, a side-by-side represenation is less illuminating as it fails to provide a total. Concerning "the order of subsets", If "Figure 1" is observed in the source, the graph uses the same order as the source data. Hence if the University of Oxford doesn't have a problem with data being displayed in that order, it should be good enough for enwp editors and audience alike. A Thousand Words (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph 

message: In 2021, almost 30.000 immigrants have crossed the English Channel. The Second Johnson ministry had claimed the Brexit would makew it easier to keep them out of the UK. 
Versprechen nicht gehalten (means promise not kept)  
In November 2021, 27 migrants died last week when their smuggling boat sank en route to Britain
EU plane to monitor migrants on Channel shores after deaths (AP 28. November 2021) - that brought some attention to that migration. 
--Präziser (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  2021 

message: 35 % coming by boat to the UK are Albabians. Many of them claim to be 'victims of modern slavery', which is an official reason for asylum since 2015. 
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/14/uk-coastguard-responds-to-small-boat-incident-in-channel-search-and-rescue
PM Sunak is obviously trying to make a turn.   I am no native speaker and hope that a 'native' (ore some) will update the lemma. 178.203.108.170 (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  new PM [[Rishi Sunak]] 

message: Hi, personally I feel this article now needs a new section to cover post brexit. any thoughts on this? Firestar47 (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section post-EU