UKIP won their first seat in Parliament, and narrowly lost the second. The great emphasis on anti-EU and anti-immigration arguments have sparked controversy on UKIP’s stance; are they racist?
I unequivocally believe UKIP are not; however…
11% of the UK are first generation migrants. The notion that immigrants put pressure of public resources is therefore questionable. The other 89% of UK born citizens contribute to such issues greater than the 11%, substantially so, so where is the argument faltering?
The study by University College London said recent immigrants were less likely to claim benefits and live in social housing than people born in Britain. The report goes on to state that migrants were almost 50% less likely to claim state benefits than their British born counterparts. The report also showed that in 2011, 32% of recent EEA immigrants and 43% of non-EEA immigrants had university degrees, compared with 21% of the British adult population.
Sir Andrew Green from MigrationWatch; a controversial pressure group, claims that two thirds of immigrants are from outside the EU rather than what Farage would have you believe. Here the Faragists pores begin to dampen.
Economically therein, we find its 1-0 to migrants.
Socially; the story is correspondingly so; The NHS, one in four doctors are ‘non UK nations’ according to a study by the Guardian. This is however disregards nurses and GPs which is explained in detail further within the study.
The amount of migrants in the UK labour market too, here we see stark differences to what UKIP preach; The Migration Observatory provided a briefing which entails a first generation migrant The share of foreign-born people in total employment increased from 7.2% in 1993 to 13.6% in proportion to the total workforce in 2012. Also in 2012, 36% of all foreign-born workers working as employees, and 45% of self-employed foreign-born workers lived in London, as well as process operations which include public services such as train or bus drivers at 25.3% in 2012.
So the migrants contribute to the economy and the social structure.
Moving on to historical significance; can the migrant share nationalistic traits for England?
Well, in world war one over one million Indian troops served overseas, of whom 62,000 died and another 67,000 were wounded. In total at least 74,187 Indian soldiers died during the war; and these are only registered and recorded deaths. Without the allied one million Indian volunteers, the Gurkhas, and other all ‘migrants’ at the time; would we be conducting this conversation in English? Food for thought.
UKIP’s claims that migration destroys social cohesion is a fallacy. False pretence non-sense. If we cannot adjust to other cultures, other skin types, other beliefs and tolerate and learn to co-habit then we are no less than racists. We’ve seen here economically, historically and socially migrants contributing immensely to the UK, so there’s no reason for the rising xenophobia. The xenophobia shows our prejudice and intolerance, and if we disregard the foreigner; the foreigner will disregard the millions of us living abroad. The society we live in commands multiculturalism, the globalisation of all aspects of our society rely on this concept.
To conservation of the conservatives isn’t an option anymore. To out right the right which UKIP attempt shows our discontent. UKIP may not be racist, in that they reflect only our own opinions, and their growth shows the growth of anti-multiculturalism. Their first MP isn’t the end of UKIP unless we ditch the migrants excuse. UKIP’s polling of around 25 seats in Parliament shows Our system isn’t working because of the elites, not the moor.