[ogwh]

To all the people assuming we're reducing immigration because of some kind of phobia.

The simple truth is we don't have anywhere for them to go.

We have a near permanent homeless population, with people living on the streets for years before a social housing vacancy becomes available.

Accepting an infinite number of immigrants would turn the entire country into a slum. We're in the middle of a massive housing crisis.

What are we supposed to do with them?

[dr_faustus]

Do you really think its any different in Germany? Berlin, which right now has the most refugees arriving (edit: in Germany!), has a huge housing problem. People are just giving their spare rooms to refugees. And that is after we just "absorbed" over 1 million refugees from Syria and Afghanistan in the last 5 years. I'm sure we'll manage to do the same with 1m Ukrainian refugees. From what I hear in our city (near Frankfurt), the number of available rooms offered by private citizens are still exceeding the number of refugees by 10 to 1. That will change, but its really not that big a deal.

So, I'm pretty sure that a country with 68 million inhabitants, could easily house and feed a couple of 100k people. It does cost money, though. So...

[mymllnthaccount]

>Accepting an infinite number of immigrants would turn the entire country into a slum

I mean, this sounds pretty immigrant-phobic to me. When you picture "war refugees" do you only think of people who cannot get a job? There are doctors and software engineers fleeing war right now too.

UK unemployment rate is only 4%. That's considered "full employment" in the US. It seems like you could use the extra workers.

[garethrowlands]

We have a severe shortage or workers. We could definitely use them. They might have to accept poor housing but that's due to housing policy.

[stjohnswarts]

The US could use them too and we have a LOT more open space and dying towns. Yet those same towns think they're better off being isolationist and pro-Trump (aka anti immigration). Yet US politicians are mum. We could take in 500,000 (probably a few million) and not bat an eye, but I doubt it will happen.

[netsharc]

This is a cheap shot and probably inaccurate summary, but it seems like:

1. Be welcoming to oligarchs who buy land to build mansions and raise house prices. 2. Get housing crisis. 3. Sorry war refugees, it's too expensive to house you here.

[drcongo]

Incredibly accurate.

[camgunz]

> Accepting an infinite number of immigrants would turn the entire country into a slum. We're in the middle of a massive housing crisis.

I have a sibling comment, but wanted to single this bit out as well. There's a common conception that immigrants are harmful for communities, but the opposite is true [0]. Here's the good part:

> Studies conducted by Global Detroit—an organization looking to improve Michigan’s economy by working with immigrants—show that refugees and immigrants are almost twice as likely as the U.S.-born population to have a four-year college degree. Refugees are also more likely to be self-employed—a common metric for entrepreneurship—and many are educated in STEM fields. According to the Migration Policy Institute, two-thirds of refugee men are employed, compared to 60 percent of U.S.-born men.

> Cleveland, Ohio, has seen an influx of refugees from Somalia and Iraq, which brought short-term costs like food and shelter. But locals found that the refugees were not a long-term burden on the community and that instead, the economy had improved. Likewise, refugee-settlement agencies in Columbus, Ohio, estimate that refugees contribute $1.6 billion annually to the central Ohio economy.

[0]: https://archive.curbed.com/2017/1/30/14440160/refugees-unite...

[KptMarchewa]

People in Poland are just accepting them to their homes. Nearly million refugees now and not one refugee camp.

[camgunz]

> The simple truth is we don't have anywhere for them to go.

The UK is 51st (277/km2) on the list of countries by population density, greatest to least. It trails EU countries Belgium at 35th (376/km2) and The Netherlands (457/km2). Belgium is removing visa requirements for Ukrainian refugees [0]. The Netherlands is preparing space for 50,000 [1].

> We have a near permanent homeless population, with people living on the streets for years before a social housing vacancy becomes available.

Homelessness is not a function of population density (e.g. compare rates between the UK and Japan).

[0]: https://www.thebulletin.be/belgium-provide-ukrainian-refugee...

[1]: https://nltimes.nl/2022/03/04/netherlands-readying-50000-pla...

[inglor_cz]

"The UK is 51st (277/km2) on the list of countries by population density, greatest to least."

This average masks huge variance across the islands.

You can't dump the refugees into some Scottish wilderness, where, theoretically, another 10 million nation could fit.

They will likely arrive in London etc., one of the biggest agglomerations in the rich world.

[camgunz]

If we're talking about cities, Wakefield, Bradford, Leeds, and Sheffield all have low population densities (< ~1,500/km2). This is lower than Antwerp, Charleroi, and Ghent in Belgium, as well as Eindhoven, Rotterdam, Utrecht, Amsterdam, and The Hague in The Netherlands.

Is your argument "we don't have space in high density areas, and obviously we can't put them in low density areas"? Why can't you put refugees in suburbs and rural areas? The US spreads them out all over [0].

[0]: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/slideshows/states-wi...

[ricardo81]

We are on the higher end of GDP per capita. If anyone can make room, we can.

[Fordec]

And yet, Ireland a country next door, with 5m people vs UKs 67m already going through it's own housing crisis to take on 100,000 [0].

[0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukraine-refug...

[rsynnott]

Ireland, a country with an even more severe housing crisis than the UK, currently expects to take in about 100,000 refugees. Proportionally, this is similar to the UK taking a little over a million.

Housing is definitely a problem; short-term plan will be dependent on hotels and army facilities. But it is _doable_.

[benlumen]

Most people understand, if they're being honest, that we're not a xenophobic nation in the slightest.

I think the UK's anti-immigration sentiment is basically driven by chronic overpopulation in the South East. House prices won't come down despite near-constant development and congestion gets worse and worse. This is why the Scottish (for example), just don't get it. They simply don't have these problems in other parts of the union.

Young professional couples are stuck in an extortionate rental market or, if they're lucky, can spend most of their income on a mortgage on a fraction of the box they live in and still pay rent on the rest.

All that said, as a resident of the SE, the door should be open to Ukrainians. They're fighting a war on The West on behalf of all of us at this point and our problems are comparitively trivial.

[ealexhudson]

Density in this country, even in the SE (where I also live), is not that high. The "near-constant development" is not a picture I recognise - in fact, we build precious few new homes each year, far too few, and the number is going down. In 2020 we only built 123k homes?

I recognise the issue with congestion, although I would contend that's a national issue. Oxford is probably as bad/worse as anywhere else. The cost of housing is a huge issue, but that's mostly supply/demand because we're not building anything like enough homes.

"Not xenophobic in the slightest" doesn't match my experience. Most English people don't even like Scots/Welsh/Irish, you don't have to go far overseas to find people we have a nationally visceral reaction to. I'm not sure anyone objective could see our English media / watch our sports / look at the workforce statistics / look at political leaflets in this country and judge us "not xenophobic". London is literally the only place I would consider that not being a huge issue.

[benlumen]

Not that high compared to where? The whole of England itself is statistically one of the most densely populated countries on earth.

Interesting that you mention Oxford - Oxfordshire's towns and villages are being transformed by soulless new housing estates with no corresponding increase in public service provision; you can drive for miles from here and into neighbouring counties and not stop seeing them. I don't recognise this area at all compared to growing up.

Genuinely can't speak to the xenophobia, rarely encounter it and don't let it go unchallenged when I do.

[drcongo]

> The whole of England itself is statistically one of the most densely populated countries on earth.

No, it isn't.

[benlumen]

What sort of response is that? I'm sorry but yes, it is. You can very quickly look this up. Small island nations and city states aside, there are only a handful of major countries more populated than England.

[drcongo]

The UK is an unbelievably xenophobic nation, as the front page of any tabloid newspaper on almost any given day will attest.

[pasabagi]

I think this is a misleading impression: tabloids represent the views of the british establishment, which is atavistic, racist, and generally awful. I don't think the general population is so bad.

[lawn]

> The simple truth is we don't have anywhere for them to go.

Unfortunately, many other countries are in the same position.

[pgcj_poster]

Damn, if it's so crowed over there, I hope y'all aren't having any babies.