I think if you went back in history far enough you would discover than everyone has a link to immigration somewhere. Can we really blame those who wish to seek a better life for themselves and their families – especially those fleeing violence? Of course, we feel a need to protect ourselves on the grounds that too many people in a small area can make life very difficult.
However, what is the reality of the situation? Are we just over-reacting? Will this number of new people really destabilise our country? Can we afford to be welcoming and generous? Should we be, even if we can’t afford it? Surely we need good information so we can make the right decisions; instead of over-reacting with bad information?
The church is trying to support a more informed investigation into what is happening and have produced a statement – you can read them here …
[Response to some comments posted]
I received a few comments on this post – but I felt unable to display them because of their content. I was saddened by the lack of appreciation that the word immigrants is just another name for people and usually people trying to avoid being killed or looking for a better life.
A common theme in the posts is one of an Islamic plot to take over Britain through immigration. It seems to me this misses the point that the people fleeing conflict come from an area that is largely Muslim (do we want to insist they convert before we let them in?? – I do not think so) and that the immigrants from Europe are mainly Christian anyway. Shame on those who are so prejudiced. Our way of life is not threatened by a few thousand newcomers but by the millions who have been bought up in this country and yet seem oblivious to what being British means (and I might add those who foolishly turn their back on their Christian roots – mainly out of ignorance).
Another was the often quoted “charity begins at home”. Of course it does and no one ever said it didn’t! But note the word “begins” – that means something starts with and not that it is limited to the word home. It was once a very British thing to feel the need to support people who are not as well off as we are. This ideal went rampant through the British Empire and we ended up doing some things that we should not have – in the name of being helpful to others (of course there were also those British people who were willing to exploit others for their own personal gain – but that is whole other subject). The saying “charity beings at home” does not mean that we just help our own but instead means that we help those who are close to us and we then extend our help out to others – begins not ends! We should help our own.
Then this theme extended into we can’t afford to help our own so how can we help others. But if we can’t afford it (one of the wealthiest countries in the world) then who can? There is plenty of money in this country to do both but sadly a good bit of that money is used in purely selfish ways (anyone want to buy a football club for laughs?). The idea that we can’t afford it is a notion put about by the wealthy to stop the poor from asking for help. Just convince the poor folk that we can’t afford something (this is pretty easy to do by the way because they can’t afford anything themselves) and they stop moaning about wanting better (even though they are confused by the images of very wealthy people on the TV – but then let them buy a lottery ticket – even though they can’t really afford it – and they get the chance to be one of those rich people too). Then create the perfect system by convincing those in the middle (who are often the voting majority) that the poor only squander what you give them anyway and they will maintain a nice buffer between the obscenely rich and the very poor as well as keeping their career politician chums in power. We are not too poor to help – although I admit it may mean the rich have to stump up some more cash to pay for it. Maybe Bill Gates could help, he seems to have more money that lots of countries do anyway? I refer you to the Oxfam report: