[mycroft]

I will add to the response from the US about "how things about immigration are different" (yeah, not really) the same thing from Canada. We've always been welcome (well, for values of "always" that start with 17xx or so, and of course the opinions of the First Nations didn't matter for some reason) to immigrants, but they'd better be the right kinds of immigrants. So during the Potato Famine, the Irish weren't welcome (except in Catholic Quebec, and there's History about assimilation even there); after Confederation through the turn of the 20th century, Chinese labourers were welcome to kill themselves building our railways, but not their families - and they'd better not be taking our jobs (ever wonder why the Chinese Laundry or "Caucasian chinese cafe" are stereotypes, or why there are Chinatowns in every major North American city?); to our continued shame (and only apologized for completely in *2015*), German Jews were turned away in 1939, to return eventually to Hamburg; after the war, effectively we welcomed any (white) Commonwealth citizen (that's how my family became Canadian), but weren't quite so happy about the P-s (as refugees from both sides of the 1952 breakup were called here, even in my day). Memories of 1939 still burned bright when Saigon fell in 1975, and while I remember people griping about "why do we have to take all of these - where's the rest of the world?", we were effectively shamed into accepting almost all the Boat People that got to our shores, which is why you can get Pho in any town with more than 1000 people, and most of us have a decent idea if a Viet name is male or female just by looking. Our memories of our treatment of the Chinese (and demonization of Communism) came back to haunt us in the years leading to the handover of Hong Kong; and while there were objections to that as well, many "holiday babies" were born in Vancouver and are now valued Canadian Citizens (and many more are still in HK, knowing they still have their safety valve if they need it).

Somehow the Lebanese (during that war), the Cambodians (during that war), and members of various post-colonial African nations (during their wars - the current influx is Ethiopian) managed to get in without too much fuss (as long as they lived in the "non-rich immigrant" part of town and didn't rock too many boats). Our latest "Republican Lite" PM did his best to wave the terrorist boogeyman over the Syrian refugee issue to keep hold by fear a government that even their supporters could no longer believe was the best [note: that failed spectacularly], and it's only bureaucratic inefficiencies (and that's its job, no?) that is slowing things enough that that type haven't fallen into full-blown "see? they're going to make us all dress like *that*" mode.

I don't know what the "right kind of" immigrant is - but I have a good guess.

[mycroft]

To be pleasant for a change: if I had to choose a "quintessentially Canadian moment", it would be the time we were driving to Ottawa and turned off the 401 for gas around Shepard. In the strip mall with the gas station, there was a lawyer's office with signage in English and Arabic...above a kosher deli.

On my trip to DC, I saw in the Calgary airport a woman in full hijab and veil with her children...in a restaurant full of Catholics going to conference (including at least one priest and two veiled and habitted nuns). As far as I could see, it just was.

Yes, the default Canadian is still a WASP (unless you're in Quebec, where she is white pure laine catholic instead); but one out of two or three will be something different - and mostly, to most people, that's not only okay, it's as it should be. That doesn't mean we should stop here, or that everything's just peachy, of course.

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on 2016-August-04, 08:42, said:

Weird analogy, Rik. So we just rearrange and/or discard the least useful natives in order to make space for the immigrants?

No, but Boris Johnson should stop saying "I would like to, but I can't because today I have an internal problem". Because if he would be sincere about that, he would solve that internal problem and then open the doors as soon as possible. Do you see that happening?

If Boris Johnson would give a rat's @$$ about the problems with housing, health care and education and solving the problems for people who are on the short end of these issues, then he might have a fair argument: "We really like you, immigrants, but now is kind of a bad time."

But that is not the situation. He uses internal problems as an argument why he wouldn't want to do something now, even though he normally would obviously do that. As if today's problems are abnormal. Well, they aren't. There will be new problems tomorrow:

He would welcome immigrants, but today, the housing is so bad. Tomorrow he will welcome the immigrants again, but the wages are already so low. And the day after tomorrow, he will welcome the immigrants again, but police are already short-handed, the government agencies are so busy, the oil price is so high, or it is raining so much.

So, he really says that immigrants are welcome when hell freezes over. And we are working on that... Yeah, right.

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

Trinidad, on 2016-August-05, 00:08, said:

No, but Boris Johnson should stop saying "I would like to, but I can't because today I have an internal problem". Because if he would be sincere about that, he would solve that internal problem and then open the doors as soon as possible. Do you see that happening?

If Boris Johnson would give a rat's @$$ about the problems with housing, health care and education and solving the problems for people who are on the short end of these issues, then he might have a fair argument: "We really like you, immigrants, but now is kind of a bad time."

But that is not the situation. He uses internal problems as an argument why he wouldn't want to do something now, even though he normally would obviously do that. As if today's problems are abnormal. Well, they aren't. There will be new problems tomorrow:

He would welcome immigrants, but today, the housing is so bad. Tomorrow he will welcome the immigrants again, but the wages are already so low. And the day after tomorrow, he will welcome the immigrants again, but police are already short-handed, the government agencies are so busy, the oil price is so high, or it is raining so much.

So, he really says that immigrants are welcome when hell freezes over. And we are working on that... Yeah, right.

Rik

Some of the problems such as housing in London are well nigh impossible to solve, if the politicians could in any sort of acceptable way, they could guarantee their re-election for years.

[Trinidad]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-August-05, 03:48, said:

Some of the problems such as housing in London are well nigh impossible to solve, if the politicians could in any sort of acceptable way, they could guarantee their re-election for years.

You are talking about political impossibility, not technical impossibility. If something is technically possible, but politically impossible that simply means that it doesn't have political priority... The priority is defined by your "in any sort of acceptable way". Politicians decide what is acceptable. They simply think that the London housing problem is more acceptable than the cost of a solution.

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

Trinidad, on 2016-August-05, 06:03, said:

You are talking about political impossibility, not technical impossibility. If something is technically possible, but politically impossible that simply means that it doesn't have political priority... The priority is defined by your "in any sort of acceptable way". Politicians decide what is acceptable. They simply think that the London housing problem is more acceptable than the cost of a solution.

Rik

You would need confiscation of land and other things that are unacceptable in a modern democracy, that is what I meant.

[cherdano]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-August-05, 06:29, said:

You would need confiscation of land and other things that are unacceptable in a modern democracy, that is what I meant.

Wrong. You would just need to give more permissions to build houses and flats.

[StevenG]

cherdano, on 2016-August-05, 06:55, said:

Wrong. You would just need to give more permissions to build houses and flats.

A lot of permissions have been given (not just in London). Developers then hold on to that permission without building anything at all, waiting for conditions to be favourable. It is not to their advantage if supply increases.

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2016-August-05, 06:55, said:

Wrong. You would just need to give more permissions to build houses and flats.

And schools and the extra infrastructure.

Also where are you going to build them ? Do we have to concrete over every bit of green ? Knock down any industry to build the houses ?

[mycroft]

What I've been reading is that there are large parts of London that are owned, but occupied N<10 weeks out of the year. Or "apartments" that are entire floors of flats that are really 5-family-sized (and also occupied a month out of the year). I'm sure that the numbers of these are miniscule compared to the demand, but I think an occupancy tax seems appropriate, if the goal is to increase occupancy. If you own a residence, and it is not occupied for X months out of the year, you owe the civic government 12-X months at the market rent for that residence.

It's probably a good way to "discourage" turning "homes" into "Airbnb hotels", too, if you tweak the regulations to require monthly occupancy by same people.

How to regulate this? Ah well, that's an exercise for the reader. It would likely require the kind of intrusiveness on the ultra-rich that...they're suggesting for the rank and file (ut of course, you shouldn't worry if you're not sufficiently brown, or chav). And the English are *famous* for exploiting loopholes in the tax laws, especially ones intended to modify behaviour.

Well, we'll see how Brexit falls out. It could just be that London in 2018 has a similar vacancy rate and market rent decrease to Calgary 2 years after the oil prices tanked.

[Cyberyeti]

mycroft, on 2016-August-05, 09:45, said:

What I've been reading is that there are large parts of London that are owned, but occupied N<10 weeks out of the year. Or "apartments" that are entire floors of flats that are really 5-family-sized (and also occupied a month out of the year). I'm sure that the numbers of these are miniscule compared to the demand, but I think an occupancy tax seems appropriate, if the goal is to increase occupancy. If you own a residence, and it is not occupied for X months out of the year, you owe the civic government that 12-X months at the market rent for that residence.

It's probably a good way to "discourage" turning "homes" into "Airbnb hotels", too, if you tweak the regulations to require monthly occupancy by same people.

How to regulate this? Ah well, that's an exercise for the reader. It would likely require the kind of intrusiveness on the ultra-rich that...they're suggesting for the rank and file (ut of course, you shouldn't worry if you're not sufficiently brown, or chav). And the English are *famous* for exploiting loopholes in the tax laws, especially ones intended to modify behaviour.

Well, we'll see how Brexit falls out. It could just be that London in 2018 has a similar vacancy rate and market rent decrease to Calgary 2 years after the oil prices tanked.

This happens in central London with the ultra-rich mainly. Russians laundering money through companies that buy them and wealthy Arabs who can decide which of the 20 such places they have round the world they wish to stay in at any given time.

[onoway]

Trinidad, on 2016-August-05, 00:08, said:

No, but Boris Johnson should stop saying "I would like to, but I can't because today I have an internal problem". Because if he would be sincere about that, he would solve that internal problem and then open the doors as soon as possible. Do you see that happening?

If Boris Johnson would give a rat's @$$ about the problems with housing, health care and education and solving the problems for people who are on the short end of these issues, then he might have a fair argument: "We really like you, immigrants, but now is kind of a bad time."

But that is not the situation. He uses internal problems as an argument why he wouldn't want to do something now, even though he normally would obviously do that. As if today's problems are abnormal. Well, they aren't. There will be new problems tomorrow:

He would welcome immigrants, but today, the housing is so bad. Tomorrow he will welcome the immigrants again, but the wages are already so low. And the day after tomorrow, he will welcome the immigrants again, but police are already short-handed, the government agencies are so busy, the oil price is so high, or it is raining so much.

So, he really says that immigrants are welcome when hell freezes over. And we are working on that... Yeah, right.

Rik

well he isn't in a position to do anything about any of it so claiming to know his position on these matters is possibly a bit of a stretch.It's May who has these things to deal with now, so I suppose we'll never know for sure. But since he himself has a very varied ancestry including Turkish which he seems openly proud to acknowledge, and indeed was himself not even born in the UK although he has renounced American citizenship, I really doubt that your conclusions that he is rabidly and inflexibly anti immigrant in spite of what he says, are entirely fair or justified.

Nigel Farage, on the other hand, is an entirely different story, and probably all those accusations ( and worse) are perfectly fair and reasonable if levelled at him.

As an aside: one article which reported that Johnson was booed the first time he spoke in France, also said that later in the same speech he was cheered. Somehow that part got left out by most of the reports picking up the story.

[cherdano]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-August-05, 07:00, said:

Also where are you going to build them ? Do we have to concrete over every bit of green ? Knock down any industry to build the houses ?

Have you ever been to Paris? Did you like it?
If no, I am sorry. If yes, did you know it has almost four times the population density of London?


The idea that there is no space to build housing in London has no basis in reality, only in xenophobia.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-August-05, 10:32, said:

This happens in central London with the ultra-rich mainly. Russians laundering money through companies that buy them and wealthy Arabs who can decide which of the 20 such places they have round the world they wish to stay in at any given time.

Some European countries have various restrictions on foreigners buying properties. Size limits and requirement for indefinite leave to remain (though I think this can be purchased, time spent in the UK could also be a condition) might help loosen the housing market.

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2016-August-05, 15:34, said:

Have you ever been to Paris? Did you like it?
If no, I am sorry. If yes, did you know it has almost four times the population density of London?


The idea that there is no space to build housing in London has no basis in reality, only in xenophobia.

a) no it doesn't have 4x the population density, it depends how you define what London and Paris, but it's at worst a little over twice, and for the whole urban area about 20% higher.

http://www.demograph...-lonlanypar.htm for source

b) I know Paris fairly well, and know more French people live in flats than do in London, particularly in the suburbs, so you can get more in the same area. Knocking houses down to build flats ain't going to happen.

I'm not sure, but I think they may be allowed to build higher too

[shyams]

I agree with cherdano that "The idea that there is no space to build housing in London has no basis in reality", although I'm not so sure xenophobia plays any role in it. IMO, it is more driven by a NIMBY culture, and a belief in the "castle" ideology.

The English have a long-held belief that "an Englishman's home is his castle". What this does is to stultify imagination... if one has families living above, below, to the left, and the right of us, how can one call it a castle? That's why Londoners are always on the lookout for properties that are >100 years old. These properties often have poor insulation, require a fortune to maintain, but command a hefty premium compared to their size and other attributes. "But they have character" I'm told, even though I have always wondered how this character helps in living a happy, healthy life.

In summary, the thing stopping Londoners from living in apartments is lack of imagination.

[Trinidad]

onoway, on 2016-August-05, 11:26, said:

But since he [Boris Johnson] himself has a very varied ancestry including Turkish which he seems openly proud to acknowledge, and indeed was himself not even born in the UK although he has renounced American citizenship, I really doubt that your conclusions that he is rabidly and inflexibly anti immigrant in spite of what he says, are entirely fair or justified.

I don't think at all that he is anti-immigrant. I think he is an opportunist. If tomorrow the population turns anti-banana, BJ will turn anti-banana at the appropriate moment, regardless of what he thinks himself about bananas or whether it will be good or bad for the UK.

Rik

[cherdano]

shyams, on 2016-August-06, 01:15, said:

I agree with cherdano that "The idea that there is no space to build housing in London has no basis in reality", although I'm not so sure xenophobia plays any role in it. IMO, it is more driven by a NIMBY culture, and a belief in the "castle" ideology.

What I meant is something different. Nobody likes to think they are xenophobic. So they invent other reasons why England cannot take in any more foreigners. There is no space to house them. (Yes, there is.) The NHS cannot cope with so many immigrants. (In fact, immigrants pay taxes helying to fund NHS. And they help the NHS to find enough staff.) Etc.

[kenberg]

An intrusion from my side of the pond, but some of this has universal application.

I am not fond of "xenophobia" as a description. I'll explain. Some years ago I recall a debate in the UK about whether Sharia law should be available in communities that wish it to be. As I understand it, this has been rejected. I think a person can prefer having current UK law over Sharia law without being xenophobic.

Now how broadly does this apply? That's a question. If you throw cultures together, there will be cultural clashes. There is no way around this. It's fine to say we should just all get along and respect each other's ways, but what happens is that we can sometimes do this and sometimes not. I have little interest in telling other people how to live and I am not much interested in having them tell me how to live. But people group themselves into think alikes and then it gets tricky.

My point is this: There is a continuum rather than a dichotomy about how people can absorb and respond to cultures that they are not familiar with. Branding anyone who has any problem whatsoever with any outside cultural practices as a xenophobe oversimplifies a complex problem. Among other things, it may not be a phobia, it may be a preference.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-August-06, 08:29, said:

An intrusion from my side of the pond, but some of this has universal application.

I am not fond of "xenophobia" as a description. I'll explain. Some years ago I recall a debate in the UK about whether Sharia law should be available in communities that wish it to be. As I understand it, this has been rejected. I think a person can prefer having current UK law over Sharia law without being xenophobic.

Now how broadly does this apply? That's a question. If you throw cultures together, there will be cultural clashes. There is no way around this. It's fine to say we should just all get along and respect each other's ways, but what happens is that we can sometimes do this and sometimes not. I have little interest in telling other people how to live and I am not much interested in having them tell me how to live. But people group themselves into think alikes and then it gets tricky.

My point is this: There is a continuum rather than a dichotomy about how people can absorb and respond to cultures that they are not familiar with. Branding anyone who has any problem whatsoever with any outside cultural practices as a xenophobe oversimplifies a complex problem. Among other things, it may not be a phobia, it may be a preference.

This is a good point. It also touches a fine line. Any phobia, xeno or otherwise, is defined as an irrational fear of something. It seems irrational for me to be in mortal fear of all Muslims living 10,000 miles from my door, but in today's climate is it still irrational to be uncomfortable when two young Muslims move in to the apartment upstairs, for example?

In other words, where does rational and irrational cross boundaries?