"was to counter the rags constantly making it look like there was some brown Muslim tsunami going on, and that the UK never asked for people to come here to to fill roles that native British wouldn't."
Perhaps before you accuse the "rags" of being economical with the truth you might check your own facts.
Immigration after WW2 was encouraged because we had nearly 500,000 deaths during the 6 years of the war, nearly 1% of the population causing a massive labour shortage. It was not because of the rubbish printed in rags like the Guardian that British people do not want work, a ruse to cover up their complicity in defending Labour's open door immigration policy.
Commonwealth or Empire peoples whatever you want to call them had the right to settle upto the early 60's , partly because of the shortage and partly in thanks for the fact they had fought beside us . The post 70's immigration was compounded by the free movement of labour policies of the EU, carried out despite the objections of the population, and the later open door policy from outside the EU, was a cynical political project predominately by Labour with the complicity of the LibDems and Conservatives. The British people of all races and creeds, do not want unlimited immigration or any more primary immigration for that matter, and believe it or not, it is their opinion that counts.
Whilst the Mail and the rest of the "rags" may have strong opinions, they are opinions that represent the majority. The Guardian in contrast, which seems the paper of choice for many on this site, is hardly read in the wider community apart from the handwringing liberal fraternity, and the lefty community who believe it is our duty to carry colonial guilt with us wherever we go. Fortunately for the country this type of thinking is slowly being marginalised, and consigned to the student debating society where it escaped from.
Before reaching out to the keyboard to flame people, you should actually read the post you're trolling.
1) I never said the British don't or didn't want to work. In a labour scarce market, workers have more of a choice in their careers. Therefore, bottom rung jobs go unfilled and immigration is sometimes used to fill these jobs that the native population no longer wants to do.
2)I don't normally read The Guardian. Sorry to disappoint you there. I know you really were hoping to insult me by calling it a rag. I agree with you about it being a rag (although I think it's less awful than some of them, just like I think the Times and Torygraph are less awful, even though they're rags which pander to their audience much of the time as well rather than perform the service to society a free and vigorous press is meant to). It's really awful sometimes and gets a lot wrong. I've even written to them correcting them at times. I've never done that with any other paper in the UK. Sorry your barb missed its mark.
I actually learned about the Caribbean bus drivers from my Life in the UK study guide, which I am sure in your opinion is just as bad as reading it in The Guardian.
3)Do not assume that because someone is an immigrant that they need a history or policy lesson from you or that they are somehow less in touch with sentiments of the general public.
Onto your post.
Not all immigration after WWII came from the Commonwealth.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/brave_new_world/immigration.htmYour information and timeline regarding the Commonwealth is off. Yes, the automatic right to settle for all Commonwealth citizens was removed in the 60s, it took decades to totally remove. It was also a bit more complicated than you make it. The history of immigration in general in the UK is a *lot* more complicated than you make it. Otherwise Thatcher wouldn't have been able to enter government with the promise to "finally end immigration once and for all". I mean, she would have only had to deal with EU immigration at that point, right? I mean the floodgates hadn't been opened by Labour yet, and the Commonwealth had been supposedly cut off in the early 60s.
There was no "open door" policy under Labour. The only major relaxation of the rules for non-EU migration was the removal of the primary purpose rule. Maybe we should go back to the time when IOs ordered pelvic exams of Asian women to ensure they were virgins if they were coming on a fiancée visa? Or to say that if someone is from a poor country, coming here to marry must not be the primary purpose of them applying for a visa?
The expansion of the EU was handled poorly by the Labour government. When the rest of the EU was putting restrictions on the numbers of people from the Accession nations, having the UK along with a couple of others allow free movement was stupid.
The idea that immigrants from outside the EU are able to come here more easily during some elusive bygone modern time (usually pre-Blair) than now isn't really based in fact. A lot of the tightening actually came during Labour's turn at Government. It makes a nice narrative to tell people that there was some big conspiracy to pad Labour's voting base (because it only exists on the uni campuses outside the immigrant and work shy, amirite???), but if they were doing that, they did a real crap job at it. Before New Labour, spouses pretty much could settle automatically, people could marry on visitor visas and switch status, there was no good character clause for citizenship, no citizenship test at all, no requirement for English, etc. But you won't read that in the high quality rags such as the Express and Mail. And, sadly, you won't read that in The Guardian. There are very few sources for accurate information on immigration for the general public.
As for the majority of the people holding right-wing views about immigration [citation needed] and the right-wing yellow journalism reflecting that, isn't that a circular argument? How can it be right to have the press intentionally distort the facts to fit its readership instead of informing them. It's a bit like a snake swallowing its tail. Which comes first, the ignorant readers or the press sowing misinformation in its readers?
I didn't realise the press's job was to tell people what they already think they know.
ETA: It sounds like this guy would benefit from reading the Life in the UK book even before it's revised. Jack, get yourself a copy and read.
