Bank Account Cheques For Pip Claimants
How it Works9 mins ago
What in an Immigrant?.
18 Answers
What actually is an Immigrant?, and just when are the Descendants of an Immigrant no longer classed as an Immigrant?.
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Lonnie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think immigrant just means someone from another country who comes here to live (legally)
My mate is an immigrant. Hes been here 5 years and in a couple of months he will get his British Citizenship, so I guess that means he is no longer classed as an immigrant. His two kids who were born here are both British.
My mate is an immigrant. Hes been here 5 years and in a couple of months he will get his British Citizenship, so I guess that means he is no longer classed as an immigrant. His two kids who were born here are both British.
Hi Lonnie, I usually think of first generation immigrants as 'immigrants', However, where the second generation is concerned, I do think culture is the defining factor. If parents make no effort to integrate, and raise their children almost exclusively within the culture of their native land, then it's likely the children will also be perceived as immigrants.
Jo, no I don't think everyone in the UK is an immigrant. You cite the invasion history of England, but looking closer to the present day, the descendants of the West Indians who came here in the 1950s can't be considered immigrants - and neither can someone like Lonnie. I assume his ancestors came from another country, but that doesn't make him an immigrant.
Jo, no I don't think everyone in the UK is an immigrant. You cite the invasion history of England, but looking closer to the present day, the descendants of the West Indians who came here in the 1950s can't be considered immigrants - and neither can someone like Lonnie. I assume his ancestors came from another country, but that doesn't make him an immigrant.
Firstly what a thought provoking question.
I suppose the timescale is partly dependant when the 'host' population considers the descendants fully assimilated and host country born, and partly when the descendants consider themselves to be native born. Those two do not necessarily coincide. When the host thinks you should support England at Cricket and when the descendant supports England vary.
I think there are probably a number of different factors at play. One is the position the immigrants have in the culture. In this country when the Normans invaded they did so from a position of power so could force themselves onto and into the culture. However even marrying into the Saxon's they probably worked hard to retain their Normanishness through language and clothing.
Some of it may be due to visibility. So a white person in Europe could if they so choose to quickly assimilated if they dropped all the cultural signifyers of their parents/grandparents, such as language and religion.
Those of African/Caribbean descent may be more obviously visible ie skin tone, but descendants by speaking (in mainstream white company) without a noticeable accent or a local accent, dressing in western clothes and not retaining any overtly different cultural behaviours (such as having their own food shops, wearing wigs etc) can be perceived as almost 'one of us'.
However again these cultural differences are sometimes held onto depending on the position of the immigrant. The white British in Spain apparently hold on to the rituals of tea drinking in a way no one does back here.
Finally, I think it also depends on the economic situation of the host country. In times of prosperity and stability the host is at one with the world, tolerant and elastic. When there are economic difficulties a culture of blame arises and scapegoats are looked for, those who appear different are sadly the obvious choice.
I suppose the timescale is partly dependant when the 'host' population considers the descendants fully assimilated and host country born, and partly when the descendants consider themselves to be native born. Those two do not necessarily coincide. When the host thinks you should support England at Cricket and when the descendant supports England vary.
I think there are probably a number of different factors at play. One is the position the immigrants have in the culture. In this country when the Normans invaded they did so from a position of power so could force themselves onto and into the culture. However even marrying into the Saxon's they probably worked hard to retain their Normanishness through language and clothing.
Some of it may be due to visibility. So a white person in Europe could if they so choose to quickly assimilated if they dropped all the cultural signifyers of their parents/grandparents, such as language and religion.
Those of African/Caribbean descent may be more obviously visible ie skin tone, but descendants by speaking (in mainstream white company) without a noticeable accent or a local accent, dressing in western clothes and not retaining any overtly different cultural behaviours (such as having their own food shops, wearing wigs etc) can be perceived as almost 'one of us'.
However again these cultural differences are sometimes held onto depending on the position of the immigrant. The white British in Spain apparently hold on to the rituals of tea drinking in a way no one does back here.
Finally, I think it also depends on the economic situation of the host country. In times of prosperity and stability the host is at one with the world, tolerant and elastic. When there are economic difficulties a culture of blame arises and scapegoats are looked for, those who appear different are sadly the obvious choice.
naomi and Ruby,
Most thoughtful and detailed answers, which is what I was after, thank you both very much.
naomi,
You mentioned my ancesters,
My paternal grandparents came from Roumania just before the first war, to escape the persecutions, although their families originally came from Saxony, (my grandfather enlisted and fought in the British Army), so they were Immigrants.
My Father, born here, in the Eighth army, met my mother and married her in Egypt, so she was an immigrant.
I've never classed myself as an Immigrant, as I was born and raised here.
My Army id card had my nationality as British/English, which I still have. ssh on that one.
I think your right, to a certain extent, when you mention the culture, but I think thats a voluntary thing, and anyone who lives here on a permanent basis, but regards another country as home, should be told to go there.
cont
Most thoughtful and detailed answers, which is what I was after, thank you both very much.
naomi,
You mentioned my ancesters,
My paternal grandparents came from Roumania just before the first war, to escape the persecutions, although their families originally came from Saxony, (my grandfather enlisted and fought in the British Army), so they were Immigrants.
My Father, born here, in the Eighth army, met my mother and married her in Egypt, so she was an immigrant.
I've never classed myself as an Immigrant, as I was born and raised here.
My Army id card had my nationality as British/English, which I still have. ssh on that one.
I think your right, to a certain extent, when you mention the culture, but I think thats a voluntary thing, and anyone who lives here on a permanent basis, but regards another country as home, should be told to go there.
cont
Ruby,
I'm not sure about the assimilation aspect, obviously, that would be preferable to all the different cultures we have right now, but if you get eg, a third generation of Jamaican origin, he's no longer an immgrant, even if he doesn't mix with the host society, but, as I intimated above, if he still thinks of himself as Jamaican, then he should go there,
I don't think culture has anything to do with somones nationality, but it is divisive, and too much so.
Colour, also, I don't think has anything to do with nationality,
One thing you can't do, is cite the invasions, ie, Romans, Saxons, Danes, Normans (who were at that time, Northmen, Vikings etc) because they weren't immigrants, and when they invaded, it was from positions of power, and they won.
Naomi,
On reflection, I think you have the whole thing spot on.
I'm not sure about the assimilation aspect, obviously, that would be preferable to all the different cultures we have right now, but if you get eg, a third generation of Jamaican origin, he's no longer an immgrant, even if he doesn't mix with the host society, but, as I intimated above, if he still thinks of himself as Jamaican, then he should go there,
I don't think culture has anything to do with somones nationality, but it is divisive, and too much so.
Colour, also, I don't think has anything to do with nationality,
One thing you can't do, is cite the invasions, ie, Romans, Saxons, Danes, Normans (who were at that time, Northmen, Vikings etc) because they weren't immigrants, and when they invaded, it was from positions of power, and they won.
Naomi,
On reflection, I think you have the whole thing spot on.
invasion through warfare is seen as more acceptable? so exerting political power through a systematic manner is deemed honourable?
i would argue that any invaders in the past are immigrants in that they were not the indigenous people of the british isles, that is they were not native to the island, and came into the island through strategic warfare and cultural assimilation. i.e they probably had to get accustomed to the native tribes/britons ideologies to survive, that is not just absolute power that is the exertion of power alongside adaptive assimilation for survival.
i would argue that any invaders in the past are immigrants in that they were not the indigenous people of the british isles, that is they were not native to the island, and came into the island through strategic warfare and cultural assimilation. i.e they probably had to get accustomed to the native tribes/britons ideologies to survive, that is not just absolute power that is the exertion of power alongside adaptive assimilation for survival.
Jo, Whilst it is true that invaders from other countries were not indigenous to this land, I'm not sure the question relates to invasion at all. It's simply one of immigration - and I believe Lonnie is referring to recent history. I don't believe you could, in all honesty, categorise victorious invaders as 'immigrants'. I would also disagree that as victorious invaders 'they probably had to get accustomed to the native tribes/britons ideologies to survive.' Surely it is more likely that the indigenous people would have been obliged to tow the line of the invaders?
Lonnie I don't believe colour is an issue either. It may have been at one time, but no more. I do, however, think that culture is often a defining factor in a person's own perception of his nationality - and of our perception of his nationality. Let's take for example, people from Pakistan (I can't say all, but certainly some). They live here, bring their children up here, but nevertheless still see Pakistan as their homeland - and in truth, Pakistan is where their loyalties lie. My friend is married to a Christian Sri Lankan - a very successful businessman - but her children are instilled with Sri Lankan culture - even to the extent of wearing saris. English food is never cooked in their house, despite the fact that my friend is an English girl - and when Sri Lanka is playing England at cricket, you can guess whose side the family are on. Sri Lanka is where their loyalties lie.
Lonnie I don't believe colour is an issue either. It may have been at one time, but no more. I do, however, think that culture is often a defining factor in a person's own perception of his nationality - and of our perception of his nationality. Let's take for example, people from Pakistan (I can't say all, but certainly some). They live here, bring their children up here, but nevertheless still see Pakistan as their homeland - and in truth, Pakistan is where their loyalties lie. My friend is married to a Christian Sri Lankan - a very successful businessman - but her children are instilled with Sri Lankan culture - even to the extent of wearing saris. English food is never cooked in their house, despite the fact that my friend is an English girl - and when Sri Lanka is playing England at cricket, you can guess whose side the family are on. Sri Lanka is where their loyalties lie.
cont......
Ruby is right, of course. English people settling in Spain do often wish to continue to live the English lifestyle, but that doesn't cause the indigenous people problems. They are only too pleased to accommodate the English because it's good for business. There is little or no conflict or suspicion - the seemingly eccentric ways of the English simply bring wealth to the area - and the Spanish grab it with both hands. I don't we can seriously compare the immigration issues we have in this country to the English immigrants in Spain..
Ruby is right, of course. English people settling in Spain do often wish to continue to live the English lifestyle, but that doesn't cause the indigenous people problems. They are only too pleased to accommodate the English because it's good for business. There is little or no conflict or suspicion - the seemingly eccentric ways of the English simply bring wealth to the area - and the Spanish grab it with both hands. I don't we can seriously compare the immigration issues we have in this country to the English immigrants in Spain..
Lonnie
According to dictionary immigrant is - "person who comes to a country where they were not born in order to settle there".
That was what I was basing my understanding of the word/concept. Therefore my reference to the Norman's was correct (in my opinion).
I agree with jojojojoanne, that there was and is probably a mixture of assimilation and adaptation. Consider how food has changed due to the immigrants of Indian sub Continent. Today we ( indigenous and immigrants) now all eat spicy/curry in a way that seems incredible pre 1970; but think of how the curry has been developed by the then immigrants, to include the English love of gravy!
I think you use the word in a more narrow definition, which I hadn't been aware of at the time of you asking the question.
Your comments about someone thinking of themselves as "Jamaican" and therefore they should return to the 'mother/fatherland. Made me wonder about the difference between the country's of Britain. I was born in the South West where a high percentage of the population was Welsh and intended to stay in England but would never support England at Rugby!!!!! I have worked in Corby Northamptonshire where the local accent is a derivative of Glaswegian, there people born in England but consider themselves Scottish and hate the English. What sense do you make of that I wonder.
Bye the way one definition I looked up gave the example in Britain that immigrant related to someone who had lived here for 10 years of less.
According to dictionary immigrant is - "person who comes to a country where they were not born in order to settle there".
That was what I was basing my understanding of the word/concept. Therefore my reference to the Norman's was correct (in my opinion).
I agree with jojojojoanne, that there was and is probably a mixture of assimilation and adaptation. Consider how food has changed due to the immigrants of Indian sub Continent. Today we ( indigenous and immigrants) now all eat spicy/curry in a way that seems incredible pre 1970; but think of how the curry has been developed by the then immigrants, to include the English love of gravy!
I think you use the word in a more narrow definition, which I hadn't been aware of at the time of you asking the question.
Your comments about someone thinking of themselves as "Jamaican" and therefore they should return to the 'mother/fatherland. Made me wonder about the difference between the country's of Britain. I was born in the South West where a high percentage of the population was Welsh and intended to stay in England but would never support England at Rugby!!!!! I have worked in Corby Northamptonshire where the local accent is a derivative of Glaswegian, there people born in England but consider themselves Scottish and hate the English. What sense do you make of that I wonder.
Bye the way one definition I looked up gave the example in Britain that immigrant related to someone who had lived here for 10 years of less.
Hi Lonnie, I guess at the end of the day we are all descended from immigrants, I am a cockney, my mum,dad, and grandparents were all born in London, but going back a few more generations, who knows, my family are "Gpysy" so do We originally come from India,Romania or some other far east country,? I can't trace my family back very far on one side because obviously gypsies had a baby never registered it and just kept moving about,I never ever think of my long gone family being immigrants but at some point they obviously were, Take care Lonnie,
Ps, very thought provoking question.
Ps, very thought provoking question.
I asked this question at work today, and you'd be surprised at the different answers, it seems, apart from the dictionaries definition, there are so many differing views.
This what I think.
If your born here, and have nationality, your not an immigrant.
Its the only thing I can come up with, loyalties to other countries don't come into it, thats a political thing.
As for invaders, Conquerers, I don't think they can be called immigrants, as they've (for want of a better phrase) stolen the country.
English settlers in other countries, as you point out, create their own enclaves, (little Englands), but retain their English nationalities, so are they immigrants?, I don't know.
Anyway, ''d like to thank you all for answering, most thought provoking replies.
This what I think.
If your born here, and have nationality, your not an immigrant.
Its the only thing I can come up with, loyalties to other countries don't come into it, thats a political thing.
As for invaders, Conquerers, I don't think they can be called immigrants, as they've (for want of a better phrase) stolen the country.
English settlers in other countries, as you point out, create their own enclaves, (little Englands), but retain their English nationalities, so are they immigrants?, I don't know.
Anyway, ''d like to thank you all for answering, most thought provoking replies.
my OED gives the first (recorded) use of the word in the 1700s; before that I don't suppose the concept of immigration really existed. In fact, countries as we know them only existed rather shakily; borders were porous and people invaded each other a lot. I don't suppose invading armies counted as immigrants, but there would usually be a lot of peaceful settlers following in their wake who would. So one of William the Conqueror's knights wouldn't be an immigrant - but his wife might.
As for their descendants - if you live in the country you were born in, I don't believe you can be an immigrant, even if your parents were. I'm an immigrant; jno jnr is not.
As for their descendants - if you live in the country you were born in, I don't believe you can be an immigrant, even if your parents were. I'm an immigrant; jno jnr is not.
1 to 18 of 18
Latest Posts
Spectator - Christmas Crossword -...
Crosswords19 mins ago
ChatterBank21 mins ago
Case So Bad, Jury Excused From Service...
News22 mins ago
Society & Culture29 mins ago
Crosswords31 mins ago
