A Discussion on Immirgation

This article won't be a discussion on immigration per se.

One of the arguments you hear from the right/anti-immigration side is that parties like UKIP and the BNP (Yes, I mention them in the same breath because they are the same) are merely a symptom of not being allowed to discuss immigration without being called racist, or indeed as some papers say, in between headlines and front pages about immigration, "You can't talk about immigration".

So, I'm putting in a suggestion on how a discussion on immigration where the pro immigration side, will discuss immigration without calling you racist, bigoted or any other accusation of that ilk regardless of how racist you get.

This isn't a free ride, any anti-immigration types who participate have to agree to some terms of my own devising, gleaned from many a head/brick wall interface type conversation I've had with them in the past.

First, argument must be conducted online in a discussion forum type environment, this allows both sides to cite articles, studies and websites and have plenty of time to read and counterpoint them.

Second, Argument must be based on facts, statistics and reports, not anecdote, opinion or editorial. The number of times I've been in a discussion and quoted, for example that Legal migrants are entitled to all our benefits, as they have come over here with a job at some point and therefore paid tax, Asylum seekers get £30 odd a week and illegals get nothing, being illegal. Only to be told that "I see them every day and they get more than that" Back it up, with facts and figures, otherwise I might as well respond "No they don't, I see them not get benefits every day." Similarly, the oft stated claim that "They don't integrate" prove it, both sides, have studies been done. I recall one (Can't find a citation sadly) which actually said your average muslim migrant read the sun, watched X-Factor, supported the local football team and worried about immigrants (Seriously) how is that not integrating.

Third, the anti-immigration side have to specify at each point who "They" are. Again I've been in arguments where "Immigrant" flits between someone in from the EU, someone on a student Visa, economic migrant, illegal migrant and asylum seeker. (In truth this is because most anti-immigration types don't know the difference)

Fourth, leave your tin-foil hat at the door. There is no point pretending to have a discussion with someone only to respond to a set of facts with "Oh well they would say that" If you have a fault with the figures, by all means, lest see a factual backing up of these, or a scientific deconstruction of the methods. I've seen this done in just about all of migration watch's stuff and its a perfectly valid form of argument. Claiming the figures were "Made up" because they don't fit your view is not.

Finally, both sides must be willing to give ground. Again the pro-immigration lobby (Aside from their more lunatic fringes) are better at this, accept that people have concerns, that these can be in the form of their communities changing, and that sometimes an influx of migrants makes them feel like they're being squeezed out, and their voice may not be heard (A bit like being me in a seat where everyone else is happy with Douglas Alexander) the anti-immigration side will similarly have to be open to accept that the line fed to them by the daily mail is actually based on a slanted editorial agenda and that their life views may in fact be wrong. (Sorry, that in itself is slanted, but purely because the bulk of research I've read shows it to be the case)

The tabloid calls for open discussion mean on their terms, basically say what we like without accusations of racism. The structure I suggested would produce a real discussion, but not one I suspect the anti-immigration supporters would enjoy.