‘Illegal immigrant’ no more. The AP Stylebook today is making some changes in how we describe people living in a country illegally. Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll explains the thinking behind the decision: The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term “illegal immigrant” or the use of “illegal” to describe a person. Instead, it tells users that “illegal” should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally. Why did we make the change? The discussions on this topic have been wide-ranging and include many people from many walks of life. (Earlier, they led us to reject descriptions such as “undocumented,” despite ardent support from some quarters, because it is not precise. Those discussions continued even after AP affirmed “illegal immigrant” as the best use, for two reasons. A number of people felt that “illegal immigrant” was the best choice at the time.
Also, we had in other areas been ridding the Stylebook of labels. So we have. Next Time Someone Tells You That Immigrants Are Destroying Our Country, Show Them This. Hollie McNish: He said, "Those goddamn Pakistanis and their goddamn corner shops. Built a shop on every corner, took our British worker's jobs. " He said, "Those goddamn Chinese and their goddamn China shops. " I told him, "They're from Vietnam," but he doesn't give a toss. I ask him what was there before the damn Japan man shop.
"A British business stood there first," he claims, before the Irish came. I show him architecture's plans of empty goddamn plots of land. Man I'm sick of crappy mathematics cause' I love a bit of sums. And all this goddamn heated talk ignores the trade the Polish brought. There may be small errors in this transcript. Mythbuster: Immigration – the real story. MYTH: The flood of immigrants is unsustainable The movement of migrants is not just one way. As people arrive, others are leaving. This gives us net migration figures which for most years since 1840 have actually been negative. Geographer Danny Dorling notes that before the economic crash, the number of migrants coming to Britain was roughly balanced with the number leaving. It is also worth viewing Britain’s migration figures in a global context. The number of asylum seekers that Britain receives is again average for Europe, ranking 14th out of 27 when looking at asylum seekers per head of population.
The past decade has seen higher net numbers of migrants. MYTH: Britain is a soft touch Successive governments have been making the asylum process increasingly tough for asylum seekers despite their duty under the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees to provide protection to those fleeing persecution. MYTH: They come here for our generous welfare system MYTH: They take our jobs. The truth about 'benefit tourism' | Jonathan Portes. 'This new research should have been a great opportunity for ministers, without minimising the problems, to put some of the myths that surround this subject to rest' Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian I was early in the office today – 7.30am – and the cleaners were just finishing up. Not surprisingly, they clearly were not born in the UK, and I think it is reasonable to assume (we use a reputable firm) that they are paying tax and not claiming benefits.
But of course anecdotal evidence of this sort proves nothing, so what are we to make of the Daily Telegraph article, by Chris Grayling and Damian Green, which states that 371,000 migrants are claiming out-of-work benefits? There is some more detail in the BBC's report on the study. It says that 371,000 people, out of a total of 5.5 million, who are claiming working-age benefits, were non-UK nationals when they first registered for a national insurance number; of these 258,000 were from outside the European Economic Area (EEA).
Strivers v skivers: real life's not like that at all | Anna Coote and Sarah Lyall. 'The formal economy would grind to a halt without all the work that people do for no money at all: caring for others, bringing up children and looking after their families, homes and neighbourhoods.' Photograph: Alamy As welfare changes kick in, the cautionary tale of "strivers v skivers" is meant to sugar the pill. "Where's the fairness" asked George Osborne in his conference speech last year, "for the shift-worker, leaving home in the dark hours of the early morning, who looks up at the closed blinds of their next-door neighbour sleeping off a life on benefits … We speak for all those who want to work hard and get on … They strive for a better life.
We strive to help them. " Later, he seized on Mick Philpott as a monstrous illustration of what happens when people live off the state. This story of good versus evil tells us that people in paid work are "strivers". It is a seductive story and it is pure fiction. First, people hardly ever choose to be in or out of work. You are not a scrounger: a letter to a disabled reader. Dear M-, A few days ago you wrote to me and told me you were planning to take your own life. You told me that your reasons for this are: because you are frightened about what will happen to you when you lose the disability living allowance you rely on to live independently, and because you want to take a stand against the government’s assault on welfare.
Since receiving your letter I’ve agonised over what sort of reply to send to you. I hope you found the strength to call one of the helplines I forwarded - Samaritans in particular are a life-saving service - but I felt that something longer was needed, is still needed. I’m writing to you now not as a journalist, but as a human being, a former carer and a person who has experienced depression to say: please, please don’t do this.
I’m writing like this, in public, in part because you spoke about taking your own life as a political statement. I don’t know what it’s like to have a physical disability. Even one death is too many. Your friend, Migrants and benefits: let's call the whole thing off. [N.B. This article was updated on March 26 2013] In a speech at University Campus Suffolk in Ipswich this afternoon, David Cameron outlined the government’s new immigration strategy, which is to be rolled out in time for 2014, when migrants from Bulgaria and Romania will gain full rights to work in the UK. The driving force behind the speech and the new initiatives is concern over the impact of benefit and health tourism, with a number of migrants moving to the country supposedly to gain access to the UK’s welfare system.
Recently, we looked into reports that Bulgarians and Romanians would be up to nine times better off if they moved to Britain compared to remaining in their own country. The Government wants to remove the economic incentives for migrants planning a move to the UK by introducing transitional controls for migrants coming from countries like Romania and Bulgaria. So what are the key points? The link extends to public debt. Image courtesy of bisgovuk.