NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems to be the biggest issue of the british elections, Immigration fueled by the Daily Mail and Express, both partys are trying to out do each other in mesures 'to prevent immigation. So is there any point in it.

I don't think so, just have a look at a few of the main reasons why they are against immigration:

A) Immigrants are stealing British jobs.
this mainly comes from people on the dole, or who are unemployed, but i have no doubt enployers will select the best candate in most cases, by best I mean the one with the best skills for the job. So if they actually got there act together then maybe they'd get the job, and besides surly it isn't harming the econermy if better qualified people are coming in?

B) Immigrants are living of British benfits
The most ludicrus example of this I saw was from a BNP member who told me that immigrants get payed £200 pounds a week, and get a free house, car, mobile and a goverment grant. Currently a immigrant coming into the country gets £40 pounds on benfits if there unemployed. thats it. So they don't get huge befits do they?

C) Immigrants are pulling down the econermy.
This is completly untrue. Overall Immigrants add £2 Billion pounds into the econermy, thats taking away benfits and things like that.

D)Immigrants wreak British culture
Immigrants may do just that, but I think they enhance it, after all is Britians culture that great. This seems a bit like a phobia of immigrants really.

E) Immigrants are terrorists
It seems post 9/11 that many british people seem to think anyone from ouside the west is a terrorist, funny that there have only ever been terrorist attacks from the IRA in britian so far.

there is not an immigration problem, merely an issue that has been exaggerated by both politicians wishing to take advantage of the situation, and the media always looking for a story.

on Newsnight (bbc2) a few weeks back, they had a debate on the issue. the pro-immigration representative (forget name and organisation) quoted a recent MORRI poll they issued. they asked members of the public what they thought the percentage of all immigrants, in the world, that britain takes in is. the answer was an average of 23%. the real figure is that britain takes in roughly 3% of the world's immigrants. that's a 20% difference in public speculation - played on by the media and preyed on by politicians - so no wonder the majority of people think there is a problem.
the problem is misreprentation of the facts, or, more succinctly, no presentation of the facts by mainstream media or most politicians.

edit:
D)Immigrants wreak British culture
Immigrants may do just that, but I think they enhance it, after all is Britians culture that great. This seems a bit like a phobia of immigrants really.

that one sounds like mindless xenophobic prattle to me

Well, from a Canadian perspective...(since I don't know enough about British immigration policies)

Immigration is the only thing that keeps Canada's population from dropping, as we have a negative birth rate (and so does Britain, I believe).

Rather than force women to have unwanted children, it makes sense to allow immigration to maintain and/or increase population levels.

The taxes immigrants pay help pay for all the services provided by the government, such as old age pension/social security, universal healthcare, public education, and so on. Immigrants increases the size of the domestic market, and the money they spend from day to day boosts the economy and creates jobs.

As long as they have help adjusting to a new country, new language(where applicable), new laws and a new culture, immigrants are generally a positive force for any country.

Whilst I do not beleive that immigration or asylum seeking is an excessive problem, there is one point that should be borne in mind.

You say that an unemployed immigrant receives £40 a week, which is not very much. I know that this is not very much having lived in the UK for the first 35 years of my life, but to people from third world countries, who convert this value into their own currency, it is a fortune for not working.
The minimum salary here in Brazil is around R$ 250 a month. The exchange rate is £1 = R$5 so this £40 per week, when looked at as a monthly value is four times the minimum salary here.
You and I know that it does not have the buying power of four times the minimum salary here, but the potential immigrant, in general does not understand this.

Unless some kind of understanding of the cost of living is imparted, people in third world countries see this as the streets being lined with gold.

bump

As for D))Immigrants wreck British culture : British culture always has and will always be a sponge, there is very little remaining of indigenous British culture after all our invasions etc. If we get a large influx of foreign people, we get them to learn our language, adopt a few of their words and then settle down to our Tikka Massala and Lager.

Whilst I agree imigration is not a problem, rather the opposite. I do, however, believe a few of your points to be contradictory or bogus.

A) Immigrants are stealing British jobs.
this mainly comes from people on the dole, or who are unemployed, but i have no doubt enployers will select the best candate in most cases, by best I mean the one with the best skills for the job. So if they actually got there act together then maybe they'd get the job, and besides surly it isn't harming the econermy if better qualified people are coming in?Best in a capitalist system doesn't always mean the highest quality, it also factors in cost. And some unscrupulous employers may find that it is easy to exploit immigrants with a poor understanding of english.

B) Immigrants are living of British benfits
The most ludicrus example of this I saw was from a BNP member who told me that immigrants get payed £200 pounds a week, and get a free house, car, mobile and a goverment grant. Currently a immigrant coming into the country gets £40 pounds on benfits if there unemployed. thats it. So they don't get huge befits do they?That's it? £40 a week is what the government states that is the minimal amount that a person in the UK can live on. Not very much. However, this does not include housing costs. The government does indeed provide another benefit to assist with this cost with UK nationals, or in the case of asylum seekers it provides government funded housing. This housing is of a minimal quality and certainly not luxurious.

C) Immigrants are pulling down the econermy.
This is completly untrue. Overall Immigrants add £2 Billion pounds into the econermy, thats taking away benfits and things like that.This contradicts your first point. How can an immigrant add to the economy if they do not have a job? Also, £2 billion, what's that mean? It means nothing to me unless I know the size of the UK economy. I mean the UK economy could be a paltry £10 billion. (the GNP of the UK is about £1 trillion)

We studied the immigration system during an enhanced curriculum day at school, and we read a sheet about some of the points you've raised. To me it seems that immigrants usually have the jobs that nobody originally from Britian wants.
While I don't think that the immigration system is in shambles, I think that it is heading that way. I think that we should adopt the Tories' immigration policy, although the ground lost by Labour to the Tories because of the announcement of their policy has forced the government to change their policy, which is good. Now that the government has done something about it, I think that there will be less fuel for parties such as the British National Party (the BNP's policy on immigration is to halt it altogether, see their policy here (http://www.bnp.org.uk/policies/policies.htm#immigration))
IMMIGRATION - time to say ENOUGH!

On current demographic trends, we, the native British people, will be an ethnic minority in our own country within sixty years. To ensure that this does not happen, and that the British people retain their homeland and identity, we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration ..

i remember what was niggling me on this subject. Asylum get £40 per week, £30 of which is in vouchers which are only redeemable in certain stores. And any one who's spent vouchers in a store before knows that the store won't give you change. And very finally the British Government states that the mininal amount that anyone can expect to survive on per week is £44.10. So we aren't even giving these people a basic living allowance and the tabloid media portrays them as living in marble palaces eating caviar all day long, all of which, of course, is paid for by the government.

*stabs the tabloid media repeatedly*

It seems to be the biggest issue of the british elections, Immigration fueled by the Daily Mail and Express, both partys are trying to out do each other in mesures 'to prevent immigation. So is there any point in it.

I don't think so, just have a look at a few of the main reasons why they are against immigration:

A) Immigrants are stealing British jobs.
this mainly comes from people on the dole, or who are unemployed, but i have no doubt enployers will select the best candate in most cases, by best I mean the one with the best skills for the job. So if they actually got there act together then maybe they'd get the job, and besides surly it isn't harming the econermy if better qualified people are coming in?

B) Immigrants are living of British benfits
The most ludicrus example of this I saw was from a BNP member who told me that immigrants get payed £200 pounds a week, and get a free house, car, mobile and a goverment grant. Currently a immigrant coming into the country gets £40 pounds on benfits if there unemployed. thats it. So they don't get huge befits do they?

C) Immigrants are pulling down the econermy.
This is completly untrue. Overall Immigrants add £2 Billion pounds into the econermy, thats taking away benfits and things like that.

D)Immigrants wreak British culture
Immigrants may do just that, but I think they enhance it, after all is Britians culture that great. This seems a bit like a phobia of immigrants really.

E) Immigrants are terrorists
It seems post 9/11 that many british people seem to think anyone from ouside the west is a terrorist, funny that there have only ever been terrorist attacks from the IRA in britian so far.


I'll tell you this, if the BNP doesn't get into power, and fast, then the cradle of traditional European freedom, will be turned into an Islamic "republic" under some crazed ayatollah or whatever they're calling themselves these days.

Only a fool lets foreigners into his nation at such a rate that they are destined to outnumber his people. Only an idiot sees no problem with that, and only a braindead lunatic thinks the foreigners who publicly profess love, won't hesitate to commit genocide against their former hosts, when the time is ripe.

And if the BNP do get into power, then all thats left is Le Penn coming into power in France and the world will officialy go to hell. Britain and France will declare war on all Muslims and Jews, and WW3 will be upon us.

And if the BNP do get into power, then all thats left is Le Penn coming into power in France and the world will officialy go to hell. Britain and France will declare war on all Muslims and Jews, and WW3 will be upon us.



I don't think the Muslims have the power to do anything except suffer horribly high losses. They've never done much against Israel, and Israel doesn't have the armed might that France and Britain have, or could easily muster.

I'd like to see the NF take power in France, BNP in England, NDP in Germany, Vlaams Blok in Belgium, NAP in Italy, Partido Bloquista San Juan in Argentina, and in general we just need a good ole worldwide reactionary movement to spread like wildfire.

It's time we put right what the left has been putting wrong, they think they can just let the foreigners flood into our lands, and they think they can use foreigners to form into massive voting blocs to outvote the natives and keep themselves in power so they can do as they wish. We need to rectify this situation and fast.

Only a fool lets foreigners into his nation at such a rate that they are destined to outnumber his people. Only an idiot sees no problem with that, and only a braindead lunatic thinks the foreigners who publicly profess love, won't hesitate to commit genocide against their former hosts, when the time is ripe.Only a fool lets his adversaries survive and dicuss what he sees as injustice with others at such a rate that his adversaries are destined to out number his followers Only an idiot sees no problem with that, and only a braindead lunatic thinks people who publicly profess love, won't hesitate to turn against their former rulers, when the time is ripe.

...

Oh wait, that sounds like he should ban all civil liberties just in case some crackpot political party, like the BNP, tries to seize power in attempt to enforce their views on us. Mmmm, tastes like China.

Mmm, all of this stuff about race aside, what about good old-fashioned liebensraum? The UK is a small and densely populated country. We already have a housing crisis looming - due to changing demographics, true, but does it really make sense to exacerbate the problem?

And if you say that it is not a problem yet, do bear in mind that population growth will have to stop at some point in the future, and I for one would rather see it stop whilst there is still lots of empty space and green stuff and little animals and so forth!

And anyway, I hate people. The last thing I want is more of them!

This contradicts your first point. How can an immigrant add to the economy if they do not have a job? Also, £2 billion, what's that mean? It means nothing to me unless I know the size of the UK economy. I mean the UK economy could be a paltry £10 billion. (the GNP of the UK is about £1 trillion)

Not really. The first point delt with immigrants that are unemployed. This point deals with immigrants as a whole.

The fact that the net income due to immigration is comparitively small compared to the economy as a whole is not the point either. The point is that, as a whole, immigration does not cost us money but the opposite.

I don't think the Muslims have the power to do anything except suffer horribly high losses. They've never done much against Israel, and Israel doesn't have the armed might that France and Britain have, or could easily muster.

I'd like to see the NF take power in France, BNP in England, NDP in Germany, Vlaams Blok in Belgium, NAP in Italy, Partido Bloquista San Juan in Argentina, and in general we just need a good ole worldwide reactionary movement to spread like wildfire.

It's time we put right what the left has been putting wrong, they think they can just let the foreigners flood into our lands, and they think they can use foreigners to form into massive voting blocs to outvote the natives and keep themselves in power so they can do as they wish. We need to rectify this situation and fast.
mustn't do a personal or an ad hominem attack....
I don't like you........'re policies, good sir.

mustn't do a personal or an ad hominem attack....
I don't like you........'re policies, good sir.

Good, don't like me or my policies, when you're a minority in whichever land you're in, don't complain, because I told you what the problem is, and what the solution is, and you refused to accept the truth.

I don't think the Muslims have the power to do anything except suffer horribly high losses. They've never done much against Israel, and Israel doesn't have the armed might that France and Britain have, or could easily muster.
I'd like to see the NF take power in France, BNP in England, NDP in Germany, Vlaams Blok in Belgium, NAP in Italy, Partido Bloquista San Juan in Argentina, and in general we just need a good ole worldwide reactionary movement to spread like wildfire.
And I'd like to see worldwide peace, unfortunately if what you suggest comes true then peace will be a distant memory. These people idolise Hitler for crying out loud. I don't know if you're aware, but Hitler killed a lotta people, gays, gypsies, Jews. Do you support that kind of person taking power? A totalitarian, a person who'll have no respect for human life, a racist and a thug. I hope Nick Griffin gets the seven years he richly deserves.

And I'd like to see worldwide peace, unfortunately if what you suggest comes true then peace will be a distant memory. These people idolise Hitler for crying out loud. I don't know if you're aware, but Hitler killed a lotta people, gays, gypsies, Jews. Do you support that kind of person taking power? A totalitarian, a person who'll have no respect for human life, a racist and a thug. I hope Nick Griffin gets the seven years he richly deserves.



If you want peace, prepare for war.

I hope Nick Griffin gets the seven years he richly deserves.


He's nothing more than a "thought criminal" since when was unpopular speech ever a crime, granted it may be unpopular, but England needs to be open that they're no longer a bastion of freedom, but rather a slave to political correctness and whatever socialist fad happens to be popular at the time.

Immigrants are no problem, as long as muscled integration policies are in place, to force their cultural integration.

- They are a cheap, hard working source of labor, that accepts jobs no one else takes

- Most immigrants aren't allowed to vote, so they dont get a saying in national politics; Their childreen, on the other hand, if well integrated, will become just another of us, so the political threat is diminished

- They arent a threat to MY job, i have a higher education that all of them, they won't compete for the same jobs. You should only fear losing your job to a foreigner if you are an unquallified slob.

- They breed like rabbits. That is, they create more future tax payers, more future soldiers, etc.

Shure, it isnt nice to be the only white man in the train (has happned to me), but i guess that is just a stupid mindset i have; As long as foreigners assimilate our culture, its all okay, their skin color or religion is meangless.

We must just keep in mind that we must work for their integration. Expelling them is not an economically viable solution.

Not really. The first point delt with immigrants that are unemployed. This point deals with immigrants as a whole.

The fact that the net income due to immigration is comparitively small compared to the economy as a whole is not the point either. The point is that, as a whole, immigration does not cost us money but the opposite.I think you misread point A. It's about umemployed nationals complaining about how employed immigrants have stolen their jobs. C deals with the fact that the Gross product of immigrants in gainful employment is greater than government expenditure on umemployed immigrants and Asylum seekers.

Granted the point is that immigrants are more productive for our society than not, but would our economy be more productive if there were less immigrants, and therefore less workers. (I don't think so - this country was made on immigration and not isolation)

I'd like to see the NF take power in France, BNP in England, NDP in Germany, Vlaams Blok in Belgium, NAP in Italy, Partido Bloquista San Juan in Argentina, and in general we just need a good ole worldwide reactionary movement to spread like wildfire.

Nice thinking mate...just think if this ever happens we'll be saluting Swastikas before the end of their first terms...oh yay :rolleyes:

I think you misread point A. It's about umemployed nationals complaining about how employed immigrants have stolen their jobs. C deals with the fact that the Gross product of immigrants in gainful employment is greater than government expenditure on umemployed immigrants and Asylum seekers.

Granted the point is that immigrants are more productive for our society than not, but would our economy be more productive if there were less immigrants, and therefore less workers. (I don't think so - this country was made on immigration and not isolation)
I got my figure's from the Guardian...so if you want to dispute them, go there. And thank god the BNP and people like VoteEarly arn't in charge.

I got my figure's from the Guardian...so if you want to dispute them, go there. And thank god the BNP and people like VoteEarly arn't in charge.


Don't you dare invoke the name of God, God hates the left, He hates the reprobate. My God is a God of wrath, vengeance, hatred, and righteous indignation against the reprobate, and He will ultimately destroy and punish them.

Don't you dare invoke the name of God, God hates the left, He hates the reprobate. My God is a God of wrath, vengeance, hatred, and righteous indignation against the reprobate, and He will ultimately destroy and punish them.
Yeah, sure, if you say so... :D

It seems to be the biggest issue of the british elections, Immigration fueled by the Daily Mail and Express, both partys are trying to out do each other in mesures 'to prevent immigation. So is there any point in it.

I don't think so, just have a look at a few of the main reasons why they are against immigration:

A) Immigrants are stealing British jobs.
this mainly comes from people on the dole, or who are unemployed, but i have no doubt enployers will select the best candate in most cases, by best I mean the one with the best skills for the job. So if they actually got there act together then maybe they'd get the job, and besides surly it isn't harming the econermy if better qualified people are coming in?

B) Immigrants are living of British benfits
The most ludicrus example of this I saw was from a BNP member who told me that immigrants get payed £200 pounds a week, and get a free house, car, mobile and a goverment grant. Currently a immigrant coming into the country gets £40 pounds on benfits if there unemployed. thats it. So they don't get huge befits do they?

C) Immigrants are pulling down the econermy.
This is completly untrue. Overall Immigrants add £2 Billion pounds into the econermy, thats taking away benfits and things like that.

D)Immigrants wreak British culture
Immigrants may do just that, but I think they enhance it, after all is Britians culture that great. This seems a bit like a phobia of immigrants really.

E) Immigrants are terrorists
It seems post 9/11 that many british people seem to think anyone from ouside the west is a terrorist, funny that there have only ever been terrorist attacks from the IRA in britian so far.
]
fuck british jobs the americans have a bigger problem mexican immigrants are flooding my country takeing our jobs that americans such as myself should have and it pisses me off wut i think the american and the british countrys should do is place land mines all along the borders so no one will get in lol if u know wut i mean

ph43r teh immigr4tion st4ti5tic5m4n!!!!111

Seriously, just a few comments. I like to learn these off by heart.

1. Standard asylum welfare is 30% below the poverty line. New asylum seekers are not allowed to claim benefits for 6 months.
2. In 2002, the net contribution from immigrants was actually higher than you stated: £2.5 billion, worth 1p on income tax.
3. Immigrants are often forced to accept low-paid jobs. The luckier, qualified ones often get jobs in the NHS (47% of nurses and 23% of doctors were born outside the UK). Far from being a drain, immigrants contribute vastly to the health service.
4. Yes, the Right's argument that immigrants don't work and sponge off welfare, AND "steal" jobs is paradoxical.
5. European population growth will become negative in the next 20-40 years. To support the economy, millions of economic migrants will be needed to arrive each year.
6. Asylum seekers and economic migrants have made a great contribution to British culture over the past 5000 years. I may post examples later.
7. Nick Griffin, according to the New Internationalist, is a Holocaust denier.
8. The fear of being swamped is nothing but racism and paranoia. Until recently, emigration was bigger than immigration!

None of the anti immigrant political parties in Europe address the reason why Europe needs immigration. Our "native" birth rate is too low. Without immigration Europe faces a future with a declining number of people of working age supporting those who are too old to work.


If immigration is stopped then what solution is left to the demographic timebomb of an ageing population?
1)people could accept a withering away of taxation covered pensions and healthcare for the ever increasing elderly populace
The problem with this proposal is no one is going to vote to let Granny starve nor are people willing //able to make the sacrifices to look after Granny (witness the rising number of old folks being dumped into Nursing homes)

So we are left with
2)people could accept measures designed to increase the birth rate(ban on contraception) This is electoral suicide for any party that proposes it- or attempts to implement it. Bringing about a return to back street abortions and forcing law obeying woman to birth unwanted children is simply not going to happen in any modern democracy.

So in the end, we are left with the only solution, immigration on a massive scale to supply Europe with the workers and taxpayers that Europe itself is simply unwilling to sire.


Does this mean a shift of European culture towards the culture of the immigrants? Probably, but the Europeans dont care enough about this to do anything about it. Mass immigration into Europe will continue, because the Europeans do not care for the alternatives.

]
<snip>

wut i think the american and the british countrys should do is place land mines all along the borders so no one will get in lol if u know wut i mean
You do know that Britain is an island, don't you? Not that many land boundaries as such.

]
fuck british jobs the americans have a bigger problem mexican immigrants are flooding my country takeing our jobs that americans such as myself should have and it pisses me off wut i think the american and the british countrys should do is place land mines all along the borders so no one will get in lol if u know wut i mean'Case you hadn't noticed, Britian is an island. The only land based connection it has with the continent is the channel tunnel.

None of the anti immigrant political parties in Europe address the reason why Europe needs immigration. Our "native" birth rate is too low. Without immigration Europe faces a future with a declining number of people of working age supporting those who are too old to work.


If immigration is stopped then what solution is left to the demographic timebomb of an ageing population?
1)people could accept a withering away of taxation covered pensions and healthcare for the ever increasing elderly populace
The problem with this proposal is no one is going to vote to let Granny starve nor are people willing //able to make the sacrifices to look after Granny (witness the rising number of old folks being dumped into Nursing homes)

So we are left with
2)people could accept measures designed to increase the birth rate(ban on contraception) This is electoral suicide for any party that proposes it- or attempts to implement it. Bringing about a return to back street abortions and forcing law obeying woman to birth unwanted children is simply not going to happen in any modern democracy.

So in the end, we are left with the only solution, immigration on a massive scale to supply Europe with the workers and taxpayers that Europe itself is simply unwilling to sire.


Does this mean a shift of European culture towards the culture of the immigrants? Probably, but the Europeans dont care enough about this to do anything about it. Mass immigration into Europe will continue, because the Europeans do not care for the alternatives.


I blame the low birth rate on the success of the radical feminist movement which brainwashes women into not wanting children, period. There is nothing inherently wrong with women having rights, as they are, people too. But the problem arises when they are made to believe they are identical to men in all regards (obviously we know there are gender differences, even just by looking, duh).

"Not going to happen in any modern democracy", well then, democracy needs to go, giving way to a nationalist government which will restore the West to sanity.


Your proposals will soon assure that there isn't a Europe left by 2030, but rather a third world colony, formerly called Europe.

I'll be quite honest, if tomorrow I was suddenly in charge of the USA, and had the loyalty of the army and enough of the populace to do as I wished, I would enact a blanket ban on all contraception.

It's called Coitus Interruptus (pull out before ejactulation) use it or don't have sex at all, or have sex and expect consequences, period, it's rather quite simple, isn't it?

I blame the low birth rate on the success of the radical feminist movement which brainwashes women into not wanting children Thats an interesting statement, however its logic seems a little flawed men are glad of contraception just as much as woman are, men want the better living standard that comes with smaller families just as much as women do. In all fairness I hardly think the fact that women do not want to be baby making machines is "radical feminism"

"Not going to happen in any modern democracy", well then, democracy needs to go, giving way to a nationalist government which will restore the West to sanity. No nationalist movement in Europe has the means to remove democracy, although the fact that you would want to is a little worrying. There is no possibility of a nationalist movement removing democracy, they lack the money, they lack the manpower.


Your proposals will soon assure that there isn't a Europe left by 2030, but rather a third world colony, formerly called Europe.They are not my proposals, they are simply the reality that Europe faces, mass immigration is changing Europe and will continue to do so, let the immigrants have Europe; the natives have shown they do not want it (a vocal minority of natives say they want to retain Europes current culture] the birth rate of Europeans and the absolute need to support those Europeans who are too old to work shows what the majority of Europeans want.
They want more workers, more taxpayers and they arent bothered about the religon or culture of those workers or taxpayers- should they be? Why?

I blame the low birth rate on the success of the radical feminist movement which brainwashes women into not wanting children, period. There is nothing inherently wrong with women having rights, as they are, people too. But the problem arises when they are made to believe they are identical to men in all regards (obviously we know there are gender differences, even just by looking, duh).

"Not going to happen in any modern democracy", well then, democracy needs to go, giving way to a nationalist government which will restore the West to sanity.


Your proposals will soon assure that there isn't a Europe left by 2030, but rather a third world colony, formerly called Europe.Perhaps you would like to look at Maddox's page on feminazis at http://maddox.xmission.com/feminazi.html?

I'll be quite honest, if tomorrow I was suddenly in charge of the USA, and had the loyalty of the army and enough of the populace to do as I wished, I would enact a blanket ban on all contraception.

It's called Coitus Interruptus (pull out before ejactulation) use it or don't have sex at all, or have sex and expect consequences, period, it's rather quite simple, isn't it?I suppose that counters your no-immigration policies. However, lack of contraception (condoms, especially) would force an increase in STD's such as HIV and AIDs. It would also eliminate the act of sex as recreation. Besides, even if men do start using the pull out before ejaculation method, theres still a chance he would get the woman pregnant, due to pre-ejaculatory fluid stuff.

Thats an interesting statement, however its logic seems a little flawed men are glad of contraception just as much as woman are, men want the better living standard that comes with smaller families just as much as women do. In all fairness I hardly think the fact that women do not want to be baby making machines is "radical feminism"
No nationalist movement in Europe has the means to remove democracy, although the fact that you would want to is a little worrying. There is no possibility of a nationalist movement removing democracy, they lack the money, they lack the manpower.

They are not my proposals, they are simply the reality that Europe faces, mass immigration is changing Europe and will continue to do so, let the immigrants have Europe; the natives have shown they do not want it (a vocal minority of natives say they want to retain Europes current culture] the birth rate of Europeans and the absolute need to support those Europeans who are too old to work shows what the majority of Europeans want.
They want more workers, more taxpayers and they arent bothered about the religon or culture of those workers or taxpayers- should they be? Why?


Europe by 2020-2030, will become one massive Yugoslavia, and millions of good people, white and non-white, will die because a government forced polarized people into the same area. You put a mountain lion and pit bull in a cage together and wonder why they fight.

I honestly feel sorry for all the people in racially "diverse" nations, my own (USA) included. Because of feel-good policies, we are going to have tens of millions die. Let us face the facts, races cannot mix peacefully, and only can be forced to do so at bayonet point. And even then the gov't plays favorites, they sometimes arrest whites, sometimes blacks. During the LA Riots they were shying away from arresting too many blacks, since they were already reeling from the "Racist" accusations against them by the Rodney King supporters.

Multi-racial democracy does not work. Multi-racial sham democracy (dictatorship) can work, but only for a short while. People who hate each other and want to fight and kill each other, can and always have, dragged an entire nation into civil war (Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Somalia, Ethiopia, Zaire, the list goes on)

It just doesn't work, people need to stay in their own nations, and respect other cultures and peoples, but keep a safe distance.

Uh-oh, someone's forgotten their medication...

I'll be quite honest, if tomorrow I was suddenly in charge of the USA, and had the loyalty of the army and enough of the populace to do as I wished, I would enact a blanket ban on all contraception.

It's called Coitus Interruptus (pull out before ejactulation) use it or don't have sex at all, or have sex and expect consequences, period, it's rather quite simple, isn't it?
Why?

Europe by 2020-2030, will become one massive Yugoslavia, and millions of good people, white and non-white,
will die because a government forced polarized people into the same area. I was never a big Nostradamus fan, forgive me if I am equally sceptical of others who claim the gift of prophecy... You put a mountain lion and pit bull in a cage together and wonder why they fight. Mountain lions and pit bulls are animals, they act on instinct. To help me better understand you, are you slandering the immigrants(thinking rational human beings) or the natives (thinking rational human beings) by comparing them to animals?
Because of feel-good policies, we are going to have tens of millions die. Once again I am a little bemused by the tactic of using prophecy as a tool of debate Let us face the facts, races cannot mix peacefully, and yet races have mixed peacefully in the past, I myself and a mutt, a mixture of Brythonic Celt, Goidelic Celt , Anglo-Saxon and Norse; the waves of invasion that led to the Norse , Irish and English blood in my veins were anything but peaceful and yet here I am now, peacefully co-existing with all the other mutts in Scotland.and only can be forced to do so at bayonet point. I can honestly say there is no bayonet point forcing me to live in peace with my neighbours, are you living in an area that is under martial law? And even then the gov't plays favorites, All governments play favourites, they are politicians after all, the beauty of democracy is that every now and then you get a chance to get rid of the politicans you do not like- in a nationalist dictatorship (like you suggested earlier) the government could play favourites with impunity, there would be no ballot box to stop them.

Multi-racial democracy does not workAnd yet mult-racial democratic Europe, and multi-racial democratic North America are far richer, and have a far higher standard of living than the less diverse regions of Africa and the Middle- East. People who hate each other and want to fight and kill each other, can and always have, dragged an entire nation into civil war (Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Somalia, Ethiopia, Zaire, the list goes on)
People fight and kill each other, and hate each other for many reasons For every Yugoslavia there is a Switzerland.The fact that some nations have experienced wars fought along racial//sectarian lines does not mean that all nations will experience wars fought along racial //sectarian lines.

It just doesn't work, people need to stay in their own nations, and respect other cultures and peoples, but keep a safe distance.
With respect you havent shown that Multi-racial democracy doesnt work, you havent shown that people need to stay in their own nations(im not even sure what someones "own nation" is- if you move to a country, live there, work there, pay tax there, surely then it is your "own nation" ) I dont know what you mean by "keep a safe distance" My next door neighbours are within 10 metres of me right now (assuming they are home) is that a "safe distance" ?

Wow. VoteEarly has some rather extreme notions and idea's. Kinda scary. :p

However I believe multi-racism does work. Contradictory to your belief. It takes alot of tolerance, education and willpower to cross the cultural barriers though. And like always, there would always be bigotry one way or another, if it's not racism, it's something else. People just like to blame others.

I myself and a mutt, a mixture of Brythonic Celt, Goidelic Celt , Anglo-Saxon and Norse; the waves of invasion that led to the Norse , Irish and English blood in my veins were anything but peaceful and yet here I am now,
peacefully co-existing with all the other mutts in Scotland.


No, you are white, of a variety of ethnic white groups, but you are 100% white, ethnic and racial mixtures are not the same thing.

Do people of mixed racial heritage have to fight themselves?

fuck british jobs the americans have a bigger problem mexican immigrants are flooding my country takeing our jobs that americans such as myself should have and it pisses me off wut i think the american and the british countrys should do is place land mines all along the borders so no one will get in lol if u know wut i mean

so you want to work at minimum wage jobs such as flippin fries at mcdonald's, cleaning people's houses, painting houses, be a migrant farm worker, etc.?

everyone always complains how the mexicans are taking our jobs
NO ONE WANTS THOSE JOBS! LET THE MEXICANS HAVE THEM!

No, you are white, of a variety of ethnic white groups, but you are 100% white, ethnic and racial mixtures are not the same thing.
Now you have confused me, of what relevence is the colour of my skin? Does the colour of my skin produce my character? My thoughts? My opinions? My deeds? Other than allowing nicely tanned Americans and Australians to mercilessly take the piss out of my pastiness what does the colour of my skin have to do with anything?
You claim that multi-racial democracy will not work and then (without defining your standard for "work" ) go on to cite Yugoslavia and Rwanda as examples of multi-racial democracy "not working" has it escaped your notice that all of the combatants in Yugoslavia had white skin? Sure their politics where different, their religons where different and the poor silly bastards went to war and killed each other. But they were all, much as you describe me 100% white

Oh and the rwandans, sure they came from two different tribes, and proceeded to slaughter each other- but all of the combatants in Rwanda were 100% black.


I am genuinally mystified as to what relevence you place on the colour of a persons skin? A man is free to change his politics, his religon, his recreational pursuits. But skin? The colour of his skin? Men do not choose the colour of their skin, men cannot change the colour of their skin Men are not responsible for the colour of their skin.
Seriously, I would appreciate clarification, what does the colour of my skin (or of anyone elses)matter?

I'll be quite honest, if tomorrow I was suddenly in charge of the USA, and had the loyalty of the army and enough of the populace to do as I wished, I would enact a blanket ban on all contraception.

It's called Coitus Interruptus (pull out before ejactulation) use it or don't have sex at all, or have sex and expect consequences, period, it's rather quite simple, isn't it?

If only yer old man practiced what you preach. Actually, it probably would have been better for him (and the rest of us) if you'd been a blowjob.

Now you have confused me, of what relevence is the colour of my skin? Does the colour of my skin produce my character? My thoughts? My opinions? My deeds? Other than allowing nicely tanned Americans and Australians to mercilessly take the piss out of my pastiness what does the colour of my skin have to do with anything?
You claim that multi-racial democracy will not work and then (without defining your standard for "work" ) go on to cite Yugoslavia and Rwanda as examples of multi-racial democracy "not working" has it escaped your notice that all of the combatants in Yugoslavia had white skin? Sure their politics where different, their religons where different and the poor silly bastards went to war and killed each other. But they were all, much as you describe me 100% white

Oh and the rwandans, sure they came from two different tribes, and proceeded to slaughter each other- but all of the combatants in Rwanda were 100% black.


I am genuinally mystified as to what relevence you place on the colour of a persons skin? A man is free to change his politics, his religon, his recreational pursuits. But skin? The colour of his skin? Men do not choose the colour of their skin, men cannot change the colour of their skin Men are not responsible for the colour of their skin.
Seriously, I would appreciate clarification, what does the colour of my skin (or of anyone elses)matter?



Albanians (Bosnian Albanians known as Kosovars) are not white.

Bosnian Serbs are white.

Albanians (Bosnian Albanians known as Kosovars) are not white.

Bosnian Serbs are white.
I see I have been phrasing myself poorly, I apologise for that ;please allow me to rephrase a point I made earlier.


WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A PERSONS SKIN COLOUR, WHY DOES IT MATTER. WHY DOES THE COLOUR OF A PERSONS SKIN HAVE MORE MEANING THAN THE COLOUR OF THEIR EYES, OR HAIR. ?

Whilst on the subject of skin colour, VoteEarly, what are your views on equal rights for all, regardless of skin colour, race, religion, sexuality, all that kinda stuff?

Whilst on the subject of skin colour, VoteEarly, what are your views on equal rights for all, regardless of skin colour, race, religion, sexuality, all that kinda stuff?


I believe in quality before equality, but that doesn't mean blatant discrimination, at least not in the public sector.

But private citizens ought to be able to associate with who they wish (or not associate with those they don't wish)

No, you are white, of a variety of ethnic white groups, but you are 100% white, ethnic and racial mixtures are not the same thing.

You have a very culturally derived notion of race. Are all blacks the same race?
I'm guessing you'll say yes, yet there are some small indigenous populations in Africa that have more genetic deversity than the whole rest of the world outside of Africa. In fact various ethnic groups in Africa vary as as much from one another as domestic dogs do from jackals. A caucasian albino midget will have more genetic material in common with Yao Ming (the giant Asian basketball player) than almost any two Black people in Africa.

Remember, it was only in the last century that the Irish and English were considered two entirely distinct races. You may think that now we have done away with all of that silliness of different races of white people, but the silliness is still around VoteEarly, afterall, you're still posting.

What does all this have to do with immigration? :confused: :confused: :confused:

I believe in quality before equality, but that doesn't mean blatant discrimination, at least not in the public sector.

But private citizens ought to be able to associate with who they wish (or not associate with those they don't wish)That's not what I expected. In a good way.

i remember what was niggling me on this subject. Asylum get £40 per week, £30 of which is in vouchers which are only redeemable in certain stores. And any one who's spent vouchers in a store before knows that the store won't give you change. And very finally the British Government states that the mininal amount that anyone can expect to survive on per week is £44.10. So we aren't even giving these people a basic living allowance and the tabloid media portrays them as living in marble palaces eating caviar all day long, all of which, of course, is paid for by the government.

*stabs the tabloid media repeatedly*

why should they get any money?

why should they even be given asylum?

i don't see that you have any basis to complain that the charity they're getting is *not enough*. anything given freely deserves a thank you, not a demand for more. frankly i don't think these people *should* be given a damn thing.

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A PERSONS SKIN COLOUR, WHY DOES IT MATTER. WHY DOES THE COLOUR OF A PERSONS SKIN HAVE MORE MEANING THAN THE COLOUR OF THEIR EYES, OR HAIR. ?

No reason, obviously, except that is what people use to *group themselves*. For example black people in the USA consider *themselves* to be different from whites. As a result they make themselves different. They develop a different culture (gangsta), values, language, and strongly encourage other black people to conform to that. As a result everyone else starts to believe they are different.

Certainly it doesn't work that way everywhere... the arabs will attack the black people in Sudan regardless of whether the black people thought there was any difference between them and arabs. But at least in the USA most of the perception that race (or ethnic groups for that matter) are in any way significant is created by the people of such groups, not imposed by the majority.

[QUOTE=BlatantSillyness] and yet races have mixed peacefully in the past, I myself and a mutt, a mixture of Brythonic Celt, Goidelic Celt , Anglo-Saxon and Norse; the waves of invasion that led to the Norse , Irish and English blood in my veins were anything but peaceful and yet here I am now, peacefully co-existing with all the other mutts in Scotland.

Concerning your ancestory, you seem to have contradicted yourself in this statement.To begin with, you say races have mixed peacefully in the past, but then you go on to say, the waves of invasion were anything but peaceful.
So which is it?

Concerning your ancestory, you seem to have contradicted yourself in this statement.To begin with, you say races have mixed peacefully in the past, but then you go on to say, the waves of invasion were anything but peaceful.
So which is it?
No contradiction is present, the angles saxons and jutes all invaded the island of Great Britain (from continental Europe) later on the vikings invaded. The goidelic celts (the gaels//irish) also invaded Scotland , Wales and parts of England.These invasions were violent and bloody however despite the fact that none of these people came to Britain peacefully- their descendents (ie the mixture of natives and invaders) now live together in peace.


Modern mass immigration is different- there is no forcible invasion, no raping and pillaging of natives - instead people come to live, to work and to pursue whatever forms of happiness they wish for(from property to raising a family)

You said the races mixed peacefully in the past.

You said the races mixed peacefully in the past.
Oh FFS- the invaders did not come peacefully- however their descendents lived here peacefully and intermarried with the natives- hence different races.

mixing.

peacefully.

in.

the.

past.

Oh FFS- the invaders did not come peacefully- however their descendents lived here peacefully and intermarried with the natives- hence different races.
mixing.
peacefully.
in.
the.
past.

Try and be a bit more specific then.
Also these races that made up your ancestory were all white, your advocating that the same thing is possible today in your country with peoples of completely different colours. Here and there, yes, but on a wide scale, I dont think so.

Try and be a bit more specific then.
Also these races that made up your ancestory were all white, your advocating that the same thing is possible today in your country with peoples of completely different colours. Here and there, yes, but on a wide scale, I dont think so.
What does the colour of an immigrants skin have to do with anything?

What does the colour of an immigrants skin have to do with anything?

In relation to the rest of my post, which you convieniently decided not to quote, a damn lot. For instance, you mentioned your ancestory make up is northern European, which is white, therefore creating who you are now, so skin colour might just have a little to do with it.

In relation to the rest of my post, which you convieniently decided not to quote, a damn lot. For instance, you mentioned your ancestory make up is northern European, which is white, therefore creating who you are now, so skin colour might just have a little to do with it.
What does my skin colour have to do with who I am now? Oh and anyone reading this thread can see that I quoted your entire post (regarding my preceding post in this thread) what the fuck are you smoking that leads you to believe I "convientently decided not to quote" .. "the rest of your post"

What does my skin colour have to do with who I am now? Oh and anyone reading this thread can see that I quoted your entire post (regarding my preceding post in this thread) what the fuck are you smoking that leads you to believe I "convientently decided not to quote" .. "the rest of your post"

Like hell you didnt, you threw a bland statement back ie; what does an immigrants skin colour have to do with it, which was completely out of context to what we were discussing, which was your ancestors genetic make up, their skin colour, not immigrants migrating to your country today, which your reply could have referred to.
And what does your colour have to with who you are now, umm lets see, go for a walk down a black or middle eastern area and find out for yourself, I advise you not to go at night or alone.

Like hell you didnt, you threw a bland statement back ie; what does an immigrants skin colour have to do with it, which was completely out of context to what we were discussing, which was your ancestors genetic make up, their skin colour, not immigrants migrating to your country today, which your reply could have referred to.
And what does your colour have to with who you are now, umm lets see, go for a walk down a black or middle eastern area and find out for yourself, I advise you not to go at night or alone.

FFS, look at the history of argentina. There used to be black slaves there, then they abolished slavery, 150yrs later, there are no noticably black people. They all just peaceful mixed.

Also cuba, there are dark cubans and light cubans, they don't even think about it.

FFS, look at the history of argentina. There used to be black slaves there, then they abolished slavery, 150yrs later, there are no noticably black people. They all just peaceful mixed.

Also cuba, there are dark cubans and light cubans, they don't even think about it.


Argentina never had really had slavery, there was no plantation system. Look at Brazil and Colombia, where there was, today there are lots of blacks and mixed folks.

Argentina is the whitest country in the world (about 97% white) and the whites there are pure whites, not mixed.

Please don't tell lies about Argentina, thank you.

=Lacadaemon II]FFS, look at the history of argentina. There used to be black slaves there, then they abolished slavery, 150yrs later, there are no noticably black people. They all just peaceful mixed.

Settle down petal, no need to blow off so early, as for Argentina, dont try to make me believe that white land owners etc started to freely marry former black slaves, the class divide in Argentina was, and still is a huge one.
Peacefully mixing, maybe, but not really intermarrying.
Argentina is also made up of alot of native Indians, its not just black and white.

Also cuba, there are dark cubans and light cubans, they don't even think about it.

That would have to be as a result of not much inter racial marriages then, I dont deny that races can live together in the same country in peace, and keep their seperate racial identitys and yet share the same culture, but Cuba and Argentina would be standouts in todays world.
Do you have others?

Settle down petal, no need to blow off so early, as for Argentina, dont try to make me believe that white land owners etc started to freely marry former black slaves, the class divide in Argentina was, and still is a huge one.
Peacefully mixing, maybe, but not really intermarrying.
Argentina is also made up of alot of native Indians, its not just black and white.



That would have to be as a result of not much inter racial marriages then, I dont deny that races can live together in the same country in peace, and keep their seperate racial identitys and yet share the same culture, but Cuba and Argentina would be standouts in todays world.
Do you have others?


You people show your obvious ignorance of the manner in which Argentina was colonized. The Spanish basically wiped out the entire native Indian population, making way for white settlers. And there were never many slaves brought to Argentina (since the plantation system wasn't really in use like it was in Brazil or the American South), thus Argentina remained a largely white society, and with the massive influx of European immigrants in the late 1800s and early 1900s, it got even whiter.

You people show your obvious ignorance of the manner in which Argentina was colonized. The Spanish basically wiped out the entire native Indian population, making way for white settlers. And there were never many slaves brought to Argentina (since the plantation system wasn't really in use like it was in Brazil or the American South), thus Argentina remained a largely white society, and with the massive influx of European immigrants in the late 1800s and early 1900s, it got even whiter.

Yes but there has a been a large influx of immigrants from neighboring countrys lately, South American Indian type mostly, Argentina also has nearly half a million Jews and an equal amount almost of Syrian Lebonese, your white dreamland is starting to go eggshell colour.

Settle down petal, no need to blow off so early, as for Argentina, dont try to make me believe that white land owners etc started to freely marry former black slaves, the class divide in Argentina was, and still is a huge one.
Peacefully mixing, maybe, but not really intermarrying.
Argentina is also made up of alot of native Indians, its not just black and white.


Funny, I am only passing on what I learned when I was in argentina, from argentinians. But whatever.

They never had a large black population -unlike the southern US- and the poor whites intermarried with the blacks. That's why there are hardly any blacks there.

At any rate, if you go to, say, mesapotamia, then everyone there is ethnically "argentinian" pretty much, because of intermarriage.

We studied the immigration system during an enhanced curriculum day at school, and we read a sheet about some of the points you've raised. To me it seems that immigrants usually have the jobs that nobody originally from Britian wants.
While I don't think that the immigration system is in shambles, I think that it is heading that way. I think that we should adopt the Tories' immigration policy, although the ground lost by Labour to the Tories because of the announcement of their policy has forced the government to change their policy, which is good. Now that the government has done something about it, I think that there will be less fuel for parties such as the British National Party (the BNP's policy on immigration is to halt it altogether, see their policy here (http://www.bnp.org.uk/policies/policies.htm#immigration))

well there is truth and falsehoods in what you say.. yes.. immigrants usually take the jobs that people in the society dont want. But usually people in those societies dont want those jobs because the pay is so low, and it is usually kept low because immigrants can be paid at minimum (usually below illegally). Interesting Delima no?

While it is quite interesting that your government is addressing the "issue" now before it becomes a crisis because here in america, it is a Crisis.. a massive one.. One that Politicans wont touch with a 50 foot poll.. and its a shame because its going to quickly effect everyones lives. It has come to the point where Mexico is trying to Dictate US laws. THey ahve the audacity to repudiate laws passed in Arizona, and are trying to bring a case to the court of human rights, simply because Arizona takes measure to protect itself from illegal alliens.

Quite frankly i think you have to go one of two ways, lock the boarder down and take mexico head on with its outragous moves to dicate US law (which really is alittle unrealistic as we already pump 2 billion dollars a year into the boarder with mexico alone and still 3 million get through annually (estimated). Or you open the boarder completely and concentrate on documenting everyone that comes in and out. Then you can take all those illegals and start collecting taxes on them.. SEcurity is far less an issue than most make it out to be. After all the 911 hijackers entered the country through canada on turist visas.. tell me how tighter security on the mexican boarder would have prevented that. and right now terrorists could enter endless ways into this country (the cost of living in a free society)

At any rate, if you go to, say, mesapotamia, then everyone there is ethnically "argentinian" pretty much, because of intermarriage.

Yes but that is a mixture of similar cultures and racial types that has been intermarrying for thousands of years.

Yes but that is a mixture of similar cultures and racial types that has been intermarrying for thousands of years.

No, most of the people in mesapotamia immigrated from europe along with a few african slaves within the last 300 years. But they are all pretty much the same now.

Some of the people in this debate are starting to worry me...

And what does Race and colour have to do with it at all, nothing at all, the colour of a persons skin dosn't change there personallity or traits at all, whats the diffrence between skin clour(An organ) and eye, or hair colour? (Both Organs), it's just the amount of colouring they have in there skin.

No, most of the people in mesapotamia immigrated from europe along with a few african slaves within the last 300 years. But they are all pretty much the same now.

Mesopotamia's been around for thousands of years mate, Ur, Babylon...

Mesopotamia's been around for thousands of years mate, Ur, Babylon...

Not the one in south america.

cliky (http://gosouthamerica.about.com/od/argmesopotamia/)

But whatever.

And what does Race and colour have to do with it at all, nothing at all, the colour of a persons skin dosn't change there personallity or traits at all, whats the diffrence between skin clour(An organ) and eye, or hair colour? (Both Organs), it's just the amount of colouring they have in there skin.

So if you were suddenly to change into another racial type, this wouldnt effect your life at all.
Its more than just the colour, its everything.

Mesopotamia's been around for thousands of years mate, Ur, Babylon...
I don't think he meant Mesopotania as in the middle east, I think he was thinking Centeral American, you know near where the Myans and the Aztecs existed, if so then he's right, most current Centeral Americans are of mixed African/Spanish/Aztec decent, though the Aztecs mainly died from Smallpox and other desises the conquesadors brought with them.

So if you were suddenly to change into another racial type, this wouldnt effect your life at all.
Its more than just the colour, its everything.
No it wouldn't, I'd still be the same guy I am now, I'd still play rugby, i'd still live on a Farm, I'd still have the same mates. i might get more abuse but that don't matter does it.

race is not everything, caracter is everything.

I don't think he meant Mesopotania as in the middle east, I think he was thinking Centeral American, you know near where the Myans and the Aztecs existed, if so then he's right, most current Centeral Americans are of mixed African/Spanish/Aztec decent, though the Aztecs mainly died from Smallpox and other desises the conquesadors brought with them.

Yes, read post 75. I even put in a cliky.

Not the one in south america.

cliky (http://gosouthamerica.about.com/od/argmesopotamia/)

But whatever.
he was talking about the one in the middle East, there where no real civilisations in South America other than the Inca's. In Mesipotania there where loads ranging from the Israilites to Assuria, the Hittlites, Eygipt, Ur, The Mespotanian city states, Persia, the Greeks, the Parthians, Secluoids,...I studied these things at A-level, you want me to go on?

Not the one in south america.
cliky (http://gosouthamerica.about.com/od/argmesopotamia/)
But whatever.

Oh right, and thats such common knowledge too isnt it.

Yes, read post 75. I even put in a cliky.
Isn't coming up for me.

No it wouldn't, I'd still be the same guy I am now, I'd still play rugby, i'd still live on a Farm, I'd still have the same mates. i might get more abuse but that don't matter does it.
race is not everything, caracter is everything.

Agreed, and thats 'Character'.
But you are kidding yourself if you think you would be the same person, for one you would be able to dance better, jump higher, probably prefer different music all of a sudden, racial type is more than just skin deep, its to the bone bro!

Oh right, and thats such common knowledge too isnt it.

I thought what I said earlier was clear.

At any rate, if you go to, say, mesapotamia, then everyone there is ethnically "argentinian" pretty much, because of intermarriage.

You could have just asked, instead of lecturing.

Isn't coming up for me.

It works for me.

I don't think he meant Mesopotania as in the middle east, I think he was thinking Centeral American, you know near where the Myans and the Aztecs existed, if so then he's right, most current Centeral Americans are of mixed African/Spanish/Aztec decent, though the Aztecs mainly died from Smallpox and other desises the conquesadors brought with them.

He meant the Mesopotamia area in northern Argentina which I have just become aware of, like the rest of the worlds poor dumb inhabitants that hadnt been to Argentina, I wrongly assumed the only mesopotamia was in the middle east where it has resided and been discussed and fought over for thousands of years.

Agreed, and thats 'Character'.
But you are kidding yourself if you think you would be the same person, for one you would be able to dance better, jump higher, probably prefer different music all of a sudden, racial type is more than just skin deep, its to the bone bro!
Ah so you arn't just talking about Race, so the fact that I've got italian and Frenchh blood in my veins means that i will like certain types of music ect. May be your right, but it dosn't change the importants things, they seem good traits anyway.

He meant the Mesopotamia area in northern Argentina which I have just become aware of, like the rest of the worlds poor dumb inhabitants that hadnt been to Argentina, I wrongly assumed the only mesopotamia was in the middle east where it has resided and been discussed and fought over for thousands of years.
Like me then.

=Lacadaemon II]I thought what I said earlier was clear.

It was about as clear as mud, your reference to Mesopotamians being 'Argentinian' did somewhat throw me, I just assumed you were using some kind of racial analogy, how about next time you come out of the blue with such an obvious place in the world, ie: MESOPOTAMIA you might care to add in the same sentence that there is also a region little known to 99 percent of the worlds inhabitants in Northern Argentina called Mesopotamia, and named after the middle eastern original cradle of civilisation, unless by some incredible coincidence the original inhabitants, the South American Indians, came up with the exact same name and spelling for that area.

Ah so you arn't just talking about Race, so the fact that I've got italian and Frenchh blood in my veins means that i will like certain types of music ect. May be your right, but it dosn't change the importants things, they seem good traits anyway.

I am talking about race, I think our racial type plays a heavy influence on what we can do better than others, and what we cant, the skin colour is just part of it.
But your absolutely right about character, colour has no bearing on that, only on whats in your heart.

I am talking about race, I think our racial type plays a heavy influence on what we can do better than others, and what we cant, the skin colour is just part of it.
But your absolutely right about character, colour has no bearing on that, only on whats in your heart.
It does have a bearing on Physical things you can do, but surly Mental things are more important, and what does this have to do with immigration?

It does have a bearing on Physical things you can do, but surly Mental things are more important, and what does this have to do with immigration?

And why do you think mental things are more important than what you do physically?
Doing physical things begins with mental processes, ie; I wish to play basketball, a very physical sport, this experience will then influence your mental processes, and give you a more balanced and healthier outlook on life, than say the intellectual who never leaves the safety of the lecture room.
And it has nothing to do with the immigration topic.

And why do you think mental things are more important than what you do physically?
Doing physical things begins with mental processes, ie; I wish to play basketball, a very physical sport, this experience will then influence your mental processes, and give you a more balanced and healthier outlook on life, than say the intellectual who never leaves the safety of the lecture room.
And it has nothing to do with the immigration topic.
No, we've gone off on a tangent havn't we, lets get back on track.

No, we've gone off on a tangent havn't we, lets get back on track.

Ill try.

As your friendly imperialist pig across the pond, I'd like to add a few thoughts of my own.
Britiain is coming of age on this issue. The United State has had hundreds of years of non stop immigration. Even though most everyone immigrated to this country, there were quite a few movements to discourage immigration: the No Nothing Party, the KKK, and most notoriously, the quota system. It was all due to the fact that immigrants have added culture shock, with ways different from the natives, most of whom could trace their lineage in America only about three or four generations themselves.
This is the first time in modern history that a major wave of immigrants is coming into Britain. Non of the anti-immigration movement's claims are true. If immigrants destroy a society, how did the US become the world's only superpower?

As your friendly imperialist pig across the pond, I'd like to add a few thoughts of my own.
Britiain is coming of age on this issue. The United State has had hundreds of years of non stop immigration. Even though most everyone immigrated to this country, there were quite a few movements to discourage immigration: the No Nothing Party, the KKK, and most notoriously, the quota system. It was all due to the fact that immigrants have added culture shock, with ways different from the natives, most of whom could trace their lineage in America only about three or four generations themselves.
This is the first time in modern history that a major wave of immigrants is coming into Britain. Non of the anti-immigration movement's claims are true. If immigrants destroy a society, how did the US become the world's only superpower?

Not really, a similar thing happened in the 1880s.

Same arguements were used (again they were without foundation) that immigration would ruin the national culture/identity etc, that immigrants cost use money that they were responsible for increasing unemployement and lowering the living standard of natives, that they were terrorists (yesterdays radical socialist bogeyman is todays islamic fundementalist terrorist), quasi-fascist organisations were set up (British Brothers League IIRC), they were located in major industrial areas, the tabloid press whipped up hysteria (google "Arnold White" and "Problems of a great city")

Of course then it was Eastern European Jews, now it is mainly Asians.

Not really, a similar thing happened in the 1880s.

Same arguements were used (again they were without foundation) that immigration would ruin the national culture/identity etc, that immigrants cost use money that they were responsible for increasing unemployement and lowering the living standard of natives, that they were terrorists (yesterdays radical socialist bogeyman is todays islamic fundementalist terrorist), quasi-fascist organisations were set up (British Brothers League IIRC), they were located in major industrial areas, the tabloid press whipped up hysteria (google "Arnold White" and "Problems of a great city")

Of course then it was Eastern European Jews, now it is mainly Asians.
Even so, the experience between the 1880s and now was not continuous. In the US, it was continuous, even though the immigrants were different. In the late 1700-mid 1800s, it were Germans and the Irish, then Italians and Eastern Europeans in the late 1800s-WWII, then Puerto Ricans and Cuban exiles, and now it is Mexicans and other Hispanic, with some Indians, Arabs, and even a few Europeans mixed in. And of course, there were always a few Asians that came in over the past 150 years.

Bump

Even so, the experience between the 1880s and now was not continuous. In the US, it was continuous, even though the immigrants were different. In the late 1700-mid 1800s, it were Germans and the Irish, then Italians and Eastern Europeans in the late 1800s-WWII, then Puerto Ricans and Cuban exiles, and now it is Mexicans and other Hispanic, with some Indians, Arabs, and even a few Europeans mixed in. And of course, there were always a few Asians that came in over the past 150 years.

I would say it was quite continuous (though not to the same extent as the US of course). Before the Jews it was the Irish and a handful of Ashkenazi Jews. Afterwards it was Carribeans and other from the Empire (admittedly many were 'imported' during wartime to fill places due to conscription). Then after the Second World War the Asians came. Which caused problems a few decades ago too (see Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech)

I would say it was quite continuous (though not to the same extent as the US of course). Before the Jews it was the Irish and a handful of Ashkenazi Jews. Afterwards it was Carribeans and other from the Empire (admittedly many were 'imported' during wartime to fill places due to conscription). Then after the Second World War the Asians came. Which caused problems a few decades ago too (see Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech)
Really britians had a lot of immigration, first you have the romans, Anglo-Saxons, Norman, Vikings, Jews, ect. There's no thing as someone who purly British really.

Really britians had a lot of immigration, first you have the romans, Anglo-Saxons, Norman, Vikings, Jews, ect. There's no thing as someone who purly British really.
True. But then again there was a huge time gap between the Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Vikings etc and the more recent ethnic groups.

Also Britain was very different then, so I don't really see them as analogous.

However just keeping modern history in mind, immigration is not a new thing.

I spent my earliest years living in Burnley. There's a very large asian muslim population. There's also a high rate of crime, especially race related crimes on both sides. You've had the race riots there. Now I live in Dorset, where we have a very low popuation of asians. It has very low crime rates, people get on with each other and it's generally a nice place to live. Sorry if I'm not jumping for joy at the thought of a flood of immigrants.

I spent my earliest years living in Burnley. There's a very large asian muslim population. There's also a high rate of crime, especially race related crimes on both sides. You've had the race riots there. Now I live in Dorset, where we have a very low popuation of asians. It has very low crime rates, people get on with each other and it's generally a nice place to live. Sorry if I'm not jumping for joy at the thought of a flood of immigrants.
That's a causal fallacy I think.

My knowledge of Dorset is fairly thin, but can I assume that you live somewhere rural or semi-rural?

That's a causal fallacy I think.

My knowledge of Dorset is fairly thin, but can I assume that you live somewhere rural or semi-rural?
Yes, I live in a more rural area, but not all of Dorset is. You have Bournemouth and Poole right next to each other, two large towns, each with a far bigger population than Burnley. They don't have many immigrants and they also have low crime. Coincidence?

Yes, I live in a more rural area, but not all of Dorset is. You have Bournemouth and Poole right next to each other, two large towns, each with a far bigger population than Burnley. They don't have many immigrants and they also have low crime. Coincidence?
I wouldn't say that it is coincidence. But I think you are simplyfying [sic] the case.

Immigrants don't come over here and start commiting crime. Not to mention that 'crime' is a fairly broad term. Do you have any statistics?

I ask because is there were a lot of Asian Burgulars then you may have a case. However if most of the crime is stuff like assault, gbh etc I would say that the natives maybe as much to blame as the immigrants.

I wouldn't say that it is coincidence. But I think you are simplyfying [sic] the case.

Immigrants don't come over here and start commiting crime. Not to mention that 'crime' is a fairly broad term. Do you have any statistics?

I ask because is there were a lot of Asian Burgulars then you may have a case. However if most of the crime is stuff like assault, gbh etc I would say that the natives maybe as much to blame as the immigrants.
I don't have any statistics , but my dad's a police officer. When he worked in Burnley there was more crime among the asian community, of all kinds. Burglaries included. As for things like assault, GBH ect I don't see how a white man walking down the street who suddenly gets attacked by a gang of asians brought it on himself. People think that racism is just a white thing, but I think I heard something on the news before that said the majority of racist attacks are by asians against whites (Edit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1160552.stm). But that must be our fault.

I don't have any statistics , but my dad's a police officer. When he worked in Burnley there was more crime among the asian community, of all kinds. Burglaries included. As for things like assault, GBH ect I don't see how a white man walking down the street who suddenly gets attacked by a gang of asians brought it on himself. People think that racism is just a white thing, but I think I heard something on the news before that said the majority of racist attacks are by asians against whites. But that must be our fault.

I wasn't about to harp on about blaming the victim. But what I was trying to get at was the exteme racial tension that has been bought about by Labour.Conservative government ambivalence and BNP propaganda.

I wasn't about to harp on about blaming the victim. But what I was trying to get at was the exteme racial tension that has been bought about by Labour.Conservative government ambivalence and BNP propaganda.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But one thing's for sure, we wouldn't have these problems if we never let any of these people in in the first place.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But one thing's for sure, we wouldn't have these problems if we never let any of these people in in the first place.
Yes, but if we don't let them in britians going to collapse due to, to many pensioners.

Yes, but if we don't let them in britians going to collapse due to, to many pensioners.
I think there are much more desireable solutions to this. For example, government programmes to encourage a rise in the birth rate would do the job. It can be done, France saw a huge boom in the birth rate because of De Gaulle's birth policies.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But one thing's for sure, we wouldn't have these problems if we never let any of these people in in the first place.

No we wouldn't have those problems, but we would have worse ones.

As Aust said, the looming pension crisis would be exacerbated ten fold if we didn't allow them in. The NHS would be in an even worse state. The economy would be smaller. etc etc.

I think there are much more desireable solutions to this. For example, government programmes to encourage a rise in the birth rate would do the job. It can be done, France saw a huge boom in the birth rate because of De Gaulle's birth policies.
Still, it is unlikely that any government programs would produce results in time to avert such a crisis. Not to mention the fact that De Gaulle wasn't working under the spectre of AIDs etc and the fact that the social situation is completely different.

Still, it is unlikely that any government programs would produce results in time to avert such a crisis. Not to mention the fact that De Gaulle wasn't working under the spectre of AIDs etc and the fact that the social situation is completely different.
I disagree. If the government acted now the results could be produced in time. It's monly because the government think for the next 20 minutes rather than the next 20 years that they won't.

I think there are much more desireable solutions to this. For example, government programmes to encourage a rise in the birth rate would do the job. It can be done, France saw a huge boom in the birth rate because of De Gaulle's birth policies.
De Gaulle didn't have AID's and the Daily Mail to contend with, any goverment who brought inhigh birthrate programms would be immidetly savaged and lose the next election.

Immigrants are not more likely to commit crimes, in fact, they are more likely to be the victims of crime.

De Gaulle didn't have AID's and the Daily Mail to contend with, any goverment who brought in high birthrate programms would be immidetly savaged and lose the next election.
I doubt that the AIDS problem is so catastrophic that people can't have kids any more. The reason AIDS is so widespread now is not because of marital relationships, but more due to people who sleep with multiple partners and gays. As for losing an election, I doubt birth policies would be nearly as unpopular as allowing an influx of immigrants.

I disagree. If the government acted now the results could be produced in time. It's monly because the government think for the next 20 minutes rather than the next 20 years that they won't.

No it isn't.

If the government announced that as a policy it would take a considerable amount of time to actually come into effect.

Even after all the requisite laws are passed and come into effect. That is assuming he can, the backbenchers will probably revolt, and even if they don't the Lords would hold it up for as long as possible meaning that it will have to be forced through using the Parliament Act. Even then the new laws will be contested in the courts and it is possible that any of our best and brightest may jump ship for more liberal climes. Making a bad situation worse.

Even after the laws come into place it would take a while for their effects to show. At best we would have a lot of 10 year olds around whent he crisis hits. Also it is a problem as to if the exploded new generation could be supported anyway, ignoring the pensions crisis.

I doubt that the AIDS problem is so catastrophic that people can't have kids any more. The reason AIDS is so widespread now is not because of marital relationships, but more due to people who sleep with multiple partners and gays. As for losing an election, I doubt birth policies would be nearly as unpopular as allowing an influx of immigrants.
Allowing an influx of immigrants is not as unpopular as you make out.

However, could you outline what you ideal new birth policy would be?

Hello All You Do Gooders Well Answer This One Then?

Why Can Foreigners Spew Out There Hatefull Message Outside Finsbury Park Mosque And It Takes Ages For The Police To Get There Act Together And Sort It Out Yet When A British Citizen Such As Mr Nick Griffin Leader Of The B.n.p. Political Party Dares To Speek Against These People He Is Threatened With A Spell In Jail
If I Go To There Countries In Saudi I Cannot Drink On The Streets As That Is Against Theyre Culture And I Am Expected To Abide By The Laws Of Theyre Land Yet A Sheik Can Come To Britain And Quite Legaly Ride A Motorcycle Without Wearing A Crash Helmet And Is Told He Can Do This As To Remove His Turban Would Be Against His Religion. You Try Riding A Motorcycle Without A Crash Helmet As A British Person And See How Fast Blue Lights Will Be Persuing You Yet Another Example Of You Must Behave In Their Countries But They Will Do What They Like In Ours.

Hello All You Do Gooders Well Answer This One Then?

Why Can Foreigners Spew Out There Hatefull Message Outside Finsbury Park Mosque And It Takes Ages For The Police To Get There Act Together And Sort It Out Yet When A British Citizen Such As Mr Nick Griffin Leader Of The B.n.p. Political Party Dares To Speek Against These People He Is Threatened With A Spell In Jail
If I Go To There Countries In Saudi I Cannot Drink On The Streets As That Is Against Theyre Culture And I Am Expected To Abide By The Laws Of Theyre Land Yet A Sheik Can Come To Britain And Quite Legaly Ride A Motorcycle Without Wearing A Crash Helmet And Is Told He Can Do This As To Remove His Turban Would Be Against His Religion. You Try Riding A Motorcycle Without A Crash Helmet As A British Person And See How Fast Blue Lights Will Be Persuing You Yet Another Example Of You Must Behave In Their Countries But They Will Do What They Like In Ours.
ow, my eyes.
its called tolerance, of other cultures, i think...
Nick Griffin doesn't tolerate others, hence he's a bad man & is/could be arrested (simplistically). (most of) the rest of us are tolerant and allow Sikhs' to not wear motorcycle helmets.

Hello All You Do Gooders Well Answer This One Then?

Why Can Foreigners Spew Out There Hatefull Message Outside Finsbury Park Mosque And It Takes Ages For The Police To Get There Act Together And Sort It Out Yet When A British Citizen Such As Mr Nick Griffin Leader Of The B.n.p. Political Party Dares To Speek Against These People He Is Threatened With A Spell In Jail

Simple It Is Called Hypocrasy. A Condition Endemic In The World.

If I Go To There Countries In Saudi I Cannot Drink On The Streets As That Is Against Theyre Culture And I Am Expected To Abide By The Laws Of Theyre Land Yet A Sheik Can Come To Britain And Quite Legaly Ride A Motorcycle Without Wearing A Crash Helmet And Is Told He Can Do This As To Remove His Turban Would Be Against His Religion. You Try Riding A Motorcycle Without A Crash Helmet As A British Person And See How Fast Blue Lights Will Be Persuing You Yet Another Example Of You Must Behave In Their Countries But They Will Do What They Like In Ours.

Saudia Arabia is not a free country, feel glad that you live in one [nominally].

Anyway, surely you would be for Sikhs not wearing crash helmets, means that they are more likely to be fatally injured in a crash.

Yet Another Example Of You Must Behave In Their Countries But They Will Do What They Like In Ours.

What?

All immigrants aren't simultaneously from every Arabic/Islamic country.

Sikhs aren't typically from the Mid-East, let alone SA

ow, my eyes.
its called tolerance, of other cultures, i think...
Nick Griffin doesn't tolerate others, hence he's a bad man & is/could be arrested (simplistically). (most of) the rest of us are tolerant and allow Sikhs' to not wear motorcycle helmets.

and incredible tolerance of a culture that supports radicals, mostly male too spew hate against westerners outside a mosque, while being in the very country they profess to hate, may I ask where is their tolerance?
And why do you turn such a blind eye to their lack of it?
Surely it couldnt be something as instinctive as fear...

and incredible tolerance of a culture that supports radicals, mostly male too spew hate against westerners outside a mosque, while being in the very country they profess to hate, may I ask where is their tolerance?
And why do you turn such a blind eye to their lack of it?
Surely it couldnt be something as instinctive as fear...
sure, (parts of) their culture may be comparitavley intolerant, but that is no reason whatsoever for us to be so. its not 'turning a blind eye', but merely mainaining our integrity and tolerance of others.

and incredible tolerance of a culture that supports radicals, mostly male too spew hate against westerners outside a mosque, while being in the very country they profess to hate, may I ask where is their tolerance?
And why do you turn such a blind eye to their lack of it?
Surely it couldnt be something as instinctive as fear...

So you'r saying that our tolerant country should not be tolerant of intolerants?

So you'r saying that our tolerant country should not be tolerant of intolerants?
tolerant, yes. allow intolerants to harm others, no.

tolerant, yes. allow intolerants to harm others, no.

Well I would say we should not allow tolerants to harm others. But harm is moot at this point.

Should we allow intolerants into the country?

Which of course means to be fair and all the rest we should deport intolerants already native to the country.

Also means you should establish degress of intolerance.

sure, (parts of) their culture may be comparitavley intolerant, but that is no reason whatsoever for us to be so. its not 'turning a blind eye', but merely mainaining our integrity and tolerance of others.

Those parts are larger than you think.

So you'r saying that our tolerant country should not be tolerant of intolerants?

Of course not, and the longer you let it grow, the more danger you will be in.

Those parts are larger than you think.
That doesn't diminish his arguement though.

He asked why should we become like them and become intolerant too?

I think that the biggest problem, for the US anyway, is the illegal immigrants that suck away at our resources and don't pay taxes

A figure quoted was that the UK takes in 3% of the worlds immigration.
What I would be interested to know is are we 3% of the worlds land mass? I think not.
Are we 3% of the worlds economy? maybe.

The issue should not be entirely about how much these people get given and if the pose a threat to the existing way of life, but also encompass, do the people living in the UK want them?

The next issue is distribution, there has been some attempts to send the immigrants to all parts of the country, but they only wish to stay around London. The often quoted UK housing shortage is at it's most extreme in the south east.

We are not looking at a national intergration of these people, we are looking at localised flooding of areas. When I was at school, there was a representitive mix (roughly 75% UK white, 5% immigrant white, 10% black, 10% Asian). Today in my area the figures are more like 40%, 30%, 15%, 15%.

This is just the children, the chance on me hearing English spoken on my local train station is around 50%.

Multiculturisim is one thing, I am getting close to being a minority group. THIS is where the BNP will try to make racisim OK.

I do not support racisim. But, I never should be put in a position where I am in the minority in my own country.

FYI, IMO, you are a UK national when you support only the country you are in, think of it as home, observe its rules and customs, and like any lasting relationship, DONT TRY TO CHANGE IT, after all this was the reason you came in the first place.
ALSO, The NHS and Benefits system does not work, and needs to return to the original NI idea, you earn the right to claim.

So you'r saying that our tolerant country should not be tolerant of intolerants?
oh shit i've just re-read this and i missed out the (very important) word "not". duh. (quote emphasis added)
no, im saying that our tolerant country should be tolerant of intolerants. i think that's the opposite of what i said before (by accident :headbang: - i deserve a NS village idiot nomination for this...)

Should we allow intolerants into the country?
yes, absolutley. we should 'tolerate' their culture, but we should not tolerate any harm (physical or otherwise) to our culture, our country, our system or our people - just as we don't for any member(s) of our society.

He asked why should we become like them and become intolerant too?
indeed. if we were to be intolerant of other intolerant people, then we would be just as 'bad' as they are. tolerance and understanding have to start somewhere.

I think rather than pandering to the right wing tabloid press it is about time that this government took an ideological standpoint, and with its healthy parliamentary majority, educated the public as to the benefits of immigration into this country.

We have a rapidly ageing demographic that are going to demand increase state pensions. Originally the ratio for pensions stated that 5 people must be in work for everyone claiming OAP. This figure is now under four and still falling.

Economic migrants coming to this country are generally young and therefore can help support the social security system in this country. They are statiscally LESS likely to claim benefit provision once granted a work visa than the ethnically indigenous populous and often do jobs that are unpopular with British nationals such as shift or night work or seasonal work for low pay and in often awful conditions.

The majority of ecomnomic migrants in this country come from Ireland, Australia and New Zealand but no-one ever complains about them. This is because the people who are anti-immigration are glossing over their racial prejudices with the shallow stance that migrants are bad for Britain when really they dislike non-white populations in their entirerity.

It is also worth noting that we have a legal requirement to house asylum seekers judged to be fleeing from persecution under the Geneva Convention. Whilst in this country they are not allowed to work whether thery are unskilled or trained as a nuclear scientist soo to say they come here to scrounge off benefits and not to work is not only unfair but clearly ill-informed.

Culturally immigrants add significantly to the melting pot of British culture which is what makes our country so great. The biggest economy in the world (the US) is built on immigrant labour because it offers limitless rserves of skills when the native supply is exhausted. We have the lowest rate of unemployment for generations and should be welcoming these people with open arms.

....We have the lowest rate of unemployment for generations and should be welcoming these people with open arms.

Do you not have enough of them livin around you already?

Do you not have enough of them livin around you already?

Enough of who? People like you? Yes.

People who work for the good of this country and those who wish to make a better life for themselves and their families? No.

Enough of who? People like you? Yes.

People who work for the good of this country and those who wish to make a better life for themselves and their families? No.
:p nice comeback

Enough of who? People like you? Yes.

People who work for the good of this country and those who wish to make a better life for themselves and their families? No.

OK, calm down, I think everyone wants what is best for thier families.
I understand your view, and in certain areas there is not much effect from immigration.

It is really annoying to walk down a local street and not hear your own language spoken.

This feeling is real and is not racist.

IMO this is what is driving the current move against immigration.
I am speaking about the area I live in. I have had discussions with my Asian neighbours on these topics, they Like where they live because it is a non racist area, but have thought of moving due to the (relitavely) large influx of east europeans.
If you lived in my area, I thnk that you may see my point, if not then, there is no discussion just expression of views.

First of all I apologise if my first reply was rude.

I lived for three years in an area of Leeds where I was a racial minority but never once did I feel threatened or fearful in a way that I wouldn't in an all-white neighbourhood.

Who do you think feel more threatened and alienated. These migrants who come here looking for work but are treated with nothing but disdain as if they are second class citizens or us in our homeland surrounded by 96% of native Britons? They move to areas where there are already communities from their country of origin so that they have someone to share their problems with and not feel so isolated in a new country. This is no different from New Zealanders all living in Shepherds Bush in London because thats where other NZ's live. They speak English though don't they? And they're white, so its less of an issue when this type of enclave exists. What needs to happen is the native population be more welcoming so as to integrate them into our communities.

You can't complain that they refuse to adopt "British" culture if they are not given an opportunity to experience it. I agree that all migrants should eventually learn English but wanting to speak your native tongue with a a friend from your homeland is not so wrong. Mereky take the ex-pats all living on the Costa Brava as an example. You don't here them speaking Spanish much do you?

your right about the expats, but that is thier bad.

I do not feel threatened except when they try to threaten. The police have recoginised this is a problem and we have a lot more beat officers trying to stop this.

What I am trying to say is, that when any group congregate, in this case by immigration, they will change the area. If the number grow large enough the native population will become the minority, in many cases the no-immigrants that stay are the ones who cannot afford to move, the old for example. These are the people who will feel threatend easist and they have the right not to.
The problem lies in that the government will find homes for the immigrants where ever, seemingly little thinking of the issues being raised in that area. If you live in a goverment supporting area (such as myself) the local council have given a priority to housing these immigrants, slewing the % figures in the area.
Also, a by product, the local council have to pay for everything first then try to claim back from the government for the expense. The additional costs in interest and late payment to companies are borne by the council tax paying residents and those companies involved. The companies cannot back out as they then cannot tender for any other council work.

This issue is bad, and does need work. It spreads from the government out. but the easyist target is the immigrants themselves.

They have many problems to face but it should be made obvious to them that intergration needs a lot of work on thier part.
This issue has been around for years, why has it become a major problem now?

I think that the lack of effort on the part of the government to spread the immigrants, which would help them to intergrate quicker, is a big cause. Likewise the lack of interest in moving out the failed asylum seekers is a point of contention.
I know people of different colours that get really worked up about this. People who themseleves came to this country less than 3 generations ago. I even know a couple who voted BNP.

Saying this should not be an issue, or even saying we are wrong to feel this way is not going to make things better. It is time to look at what is happening and try to find a better way. Some of the political solutions offered are only the same as the US or Australia, why should these suggestions be dragged down as racist, and what does it say about the opinions of the people in these countries.

We are a small island, and we are sinking.
So why are we trying to load it up with more people?

We are a small island, and we are sinking.
So why are we trying to load it up with more people?

This is the kind of nonsense rhetoric that gets people into all sorts of trouble. If you're going to use population as a basis for not accepting any immigrants you are on thin ice.

Firstly, speak to any geographer and they will tell you the planet is over populated and will continue to to grow exponentially for the next few decades. Britain is small but in reality we accept very few migrants and refugees each year. We also export almost the same amount of people through emmigration so our net growth is not very high.

There are many services that are reliant on migrant labour in this country. The prime example is the NHS. We have Indian doctors, Filipino nurses, Chinese researchers, Carribbean cleaners etc. without whom the service would collapse. As I'm sure you would agree we could do with even more doctors and nurses and other NHS staff and this country cannot now or ever train enough people fast enough to fill these positions so our only option is migrant labour.

Housing is indeed a problem and one that needs addressing but this is not the fault of the economic migrant. If he/she arrives with a work visa and finds employment or already has a work offer then the market dictates that if they can afford a flat then they should have one. You say your council give priority to immigrants but this is only the case if they are asylum seekers and must be housed in this country for their personal safety. I believe that they deserve priority over anyone...you, me whoever. No one should have to endure torture or oppression of any kind only to be told that whne they arrive in a asafe country there is no room at the inn.

It is difficult to "spread out" these asylum seekers since the services they need are already in situ in areas, perhaps such as yours, where there may be existing refugees. It is not a question of whether you are wron to feel this way but I am trying to show you the benfits of allowing economic migration and the difficulties facing refugees when arrving in a foreign land, perhaps with no language ability, and how it is easier for them and local services to place them somewhere that has an existing population and native speakers from their homeland (rather than say northern Scotland or cornwall).

The trouble is, with the continual placement of refugees in these areas, I pay extra in council tax, regardless of how it is supposed to work, there is a gap between percieved cost and government recompence. So if I leave my area, the situation gets worse.
Easy options are rarely the best. There is always a "not on my doorstep" feeling.
I live with this on my doorstep, so do many in the London area.
All I want is the oppotunity for the current crop on immigrants to merge before I face the next, not just dump them here, then when they start to merge into our culture, move them somewhere else, so I am constantly surrounded by fresh immigrants.

With immigration, why do we not use the point system employed in the US and elsewhere?

It is generally looked upon as "bad", but why?

The points sytem overlooks the need for unskilled labour in the market place. Many British people feel it is demeaning to pick fruit or clean hospital tooilets for minimum wage and therefore will not take these jobs. They need doing however and despite my misgivings about the import of cheap labour and the appallingly low wage they are paid for doing shitty jobs the only answer is to allow migrant labour to do this work.

Can I also insist that you differetiate between economic migrants who are free to live where they like, what with this not being Saudi arabia and all, and refugees who when claiming asylum are told to live where they are put. This is the fault of the government and previous governments before it for not acknowledging that we are witnessing, according to the UN, "worldwide, one of the greatest migrations in this planets history in the 21st century". People are moving from countryside to city, from towns to cities, from country to country and it is unstoppable. We should learn this now and deal with it effectively and reap the benefits rather than try to fight the inevitable. Educate, embrace and accept.

The points sytem overlooks the need for unskilled labour in the market place. Many British people feel it is demeaning to pick fruit or clean hospital tooilets for minimum wage and therefore will not take these jobs. They need doing however and despite my misgivings about the import of cheap labour and the appallingly low wage they are paid for doing shitty jobs the only answer is to allow migrant labour to do this work.

Can I also insist that you differetiate between economic migrants who are free to live where they like, what with this not being Saudi arabia and all, and refugees who when claiming asylum are told to live where they are put. This is the fault of the government and previous governments before it for not acknowledging that we are witnessing, according to the UN, "worldwide, one of the greatest migrations in this planets history in the 21st century". People are moving from countryside to city, from towns to cities, from country to country and it is unstoppable. We should learn this now and deal with it effectively and reap the benefits rather than try to fight the inevitable. Educate, embrace and accept.
Exactly.

OK, take this a little further on, lets get rid of borders and countries.

One world, one country. I really am up for this.

But it is not going to happen.

The reality is, migration is happening, we do need to educate people both those that are receveing and those that are migrating. The first to see the benefits, the second to see the problems they are going to face and how to help ease them.

Embrace and accept, this is like asking for respect. You get a level given based on experience, then you have to earn it.

To tackle your point of asylum, and economic immigration.
Asylum, if we returned those that failed to their original country, people would accept those here, the general view (as expressed to me) is that once they arrive they stay. In view of the current government having said that claimaints that have been here x years can stay, regardless of how thier claim went, I have trouble arguing against thier view.
Economic immigration, these people fall into two catagories, for the sake of differentiating them, groups a and b.
Group a are educated trained, doctors, nurses etc, the ones that we can see have worked hard to get to the level they are at and do work that society can value.
Group b are the minimum wagers, the cleaners etc. the jobs are seen as unskilled or demeaning.
Taking Group a, why do we have this skill shortage? this should be the important question, what are we doing about it? let's educate the population.
OK we aren't all to be nobel prize winners. But we can remove the barrier to career changes & late commers to higher education.
Take group b, two points and yes i do think this way and a couple of friends did the walk, if you are out of work, why? these are unskilled jobs, they pay even minimum wage is better that sitting around doing nothing. If it pays more to do nothing then either lower unemployment pay or raise minimum wage, but don't say we need to import slaves..sorry overseas workers to do these tasks.

So you'r saying that our tolerant country should not be tolerant of intolerants?

Err sorry to double post but, have you seen the anti-racist laws? we are intolerant of intolerance, at least in certain circumstances.

Asking if there is an Immigration problem is like asking if there is an AIDS problem in Africa...

Asking if there is an Immigration problem is like asking if there is an AIDS problem in Africa...
Reasons for this statement?

Err sorry to double post but, have you seen the anti-racist laws? we are intolerant of intolerance, at least in certain circumstances.

I know about the laws. But I was asking for opinions. Not laws ;)

the cradle of traditional European freedom
Would you care to explain this sentence?

Argentina never had really had slavery, there was no plantation system. Look at Brazil and Colombia, where there was, today there are lots of blacks and mixed folks.

Argentina is the whitest country in the world (about 97% white) and the whites there are pure whites, not mixed.

Please don't tell lies about Argentina, thank you.
*cough*Iceland.

As your friendly imperialist pig across the pond, I'd like to add a few thoughts of my own.
Britiain is coming of age on this issue. The United State has had hundreds of years of non stop immigration. Even though most everyone immigrated to this country, there were quite a few movements to discourage immigration: the No Nothing Party, the KKK, and most notoriously, the quota system. It was all due to the fact that immigrants have added culture shock, with ways different from the natives, most of whom could trace their lineage in America only about three or four generations themselves.
This is the first time in modern history that a major wave of immigrants is coming into Britain. Non of the anti-immigration movement's claims are true. If immigrants destroy a society, how did the US become the world's only superpower?
Pure luck. Vast resources and labour. The US can't compare itself with Britain or any other country in Europe. Or Asia. Nations who have a cultural identity of their own. Which has grown over thousands of years. Cultures that were not imported and grown over night in fast food way like the American "culture".

Really britians had a lot of immigration, first you have the romans, Anglo-Saxons, Norman, Vikings, Jews, ect. There's no thing as someone who purly British really.
Nice of you to not mention the Celts and the Picts.

*snips*...and grown over night in fast food way like the American "culture".

Like a bacterial "culture" in a petrie dish

LOL

Immigrants are not more likely to commit crimes, in fact, they are more likely to be the victims of crime.
Hmmm in the Netherlands the prison population, in proportion to the ethnic groups, has an extremely high number of foreigners. For example the Antilians. With 0.6% of the entire population they are good for about 6% of all murders committed.

Like a bacterial "culture" in a petrie dish

LOL
Well, it is spreading like an infection. :D

Well, it is spreading like an infection. :D

More like a malignant tumor, really

;)

More like a malignant tumor, really

;)
Or an Ebola virus.

there is not problem, and the BNP Are nazis

That doesn't diminish his arguement though.
He asked why should we become like them and become intolerant too?

What makes you think you would be like them, Im not asking you to spew hatred back at them, just realise a danger when you see it, and address it properly.
Why not confront these people with the same racist calls etc that you reserve only for the national front etc, why should guys who support a jihad happenning to your country, be excluded from being called racist?

What makes you think you would be like them, Im not asking you to spew hatred back at them, just realise a danger when you see it, and address it properly.
Why not confront these people with the same racist calls etc that you reserve only for the national front etc, why should guys who support a jihad happenning to your country, be excluded from being called racist?
Good point, if we are truely to have equality then you should be able to call racis on people of all faiths and races, not just whites.

The UK is not seen as a "soft touch" when it comes to asylum seekers as propogated by the right-wing tabloids in this country. Research, including that commissioned by the Home Office, suggests that individuals take account of a number of variables when deciding where to claim asylum. Some
asylum seekers have little or no choice in their final destination. Others have the financial and social resources to exert a degree of choice. Democracy, opportunityand a better life chance for children are assumed to exist in all western countries with additional factors being the presence of family or friends in a country, languageand cultural legacy of empire and images and preconceptions. There is little or noempirical evidence that welfare support is a principle motivation for choosing tocome to the UK. Few asylum seekers are fully aware of what is available to them ontheir arrival, nor do they have a good knowledge of the differences between asylum determination processes in different countries.

Hmmm in the Netherlands the prison population, in proportion to the ethnic groups, has an extremely high number of foreigners. For example the Antilians. With 0.6% of the entire population they are good for about 6% of all murders committed.

And is that because Antilians are more likely to commit murder? Or because they are more likely to be tried and convicted of murder whether they are guilty or not? Or is the Netherlands legal system 100% accurate and completely without racial bias?

Good point, if we are truely to have equality then you should be able to call racis on people of all faiths and races, not just whites.

Where does it say that only whites can be racist? I never saw this anywhere.

Where does it say that only whites can be racist? I never saw this anywhere.
It dosn't but I balive that there is an atude that only whites are racist, any white who said anything nasty about a black would be immidetly called a racist, notice there are no white muscisions like tha? But if you look at a lot of black music, for example, you'll see plenty of remarks about whites.

tolerant, yes. allow intolerants to harm others, no.


Well then you'd better tolerate the right of the BNP to hold intolerant viewpoints, so long as they're peaceful.

Well then you'd better tolerate the right of the BNP to hold intolerant viewpoints, so long as they're peaceful.
i do. they can say what they want, just not do whatever they want.
i just wish there were more of a backlash or education against the lies of the BNP.

i do. they can say what they want, just not do whatever they want.
i just wish there were more of a backlash or education against the lies of the BNP.


I believe the BNP to be the only hope for the United Kingdom, if they don't get into power and soon, it's all over for the cradle of Western Civilization.

I believe the BNP to be the only hope for the United Kingdom, if they don't get into power and soon, it's all over for the cradle of Western Civilization.
"cradle of Western Civilisation" :confused: ok... whatever.

i'm guessing you believe there is definatley a immigration problem. why, exactly?
(yes, i know there are pages of posts and you've probably already explained yourself many times, but i'm lazy...sorry ;) )

I believe the BNP to be the only hope for the United Kingdom, if they don't get into power and soon, it's all over for the cradle of Western Civilization.
Sure, if you say so, ersonally I think a liberal, progressive goverment would be better, ie, the lib dems. But if you like nazi's the BNp are your guys.

]
fuck british jobs the americans have a bigger problem mexican immigrants are flooding my country takeing our jobs that americans such as myself should have and it pisses me off wut i think the american and the british countrys should do is place land mines all along the borders so no one will get in lol if u know wut i mean

You could probably get a job, even one of those high paying jobs those Mexicans took from you, if you learnt how to spell, use proper grammar and punctuation, and some elementary geography. Needless to say, you should count yourself fortunate that no one has hired you to handle land mines.

By the way, I can write this again using simple words if you want.

Here's a notion,

How old is the earth??? 3 Billion years old?? (unless your some sort of fundamentalist dude in which 12,000)....

Anyways when all those years ago earth was created, how many walls and fences were created with it??

Would that not suggest that we as people are free to roam where ever we want?? Like Kung Fu boy!!!

Here's a notion,

How old is the earth??? 3 Billion years old?? (unless your some sort of fundamentalist dude in which 12,000)....

Anyways when all those years ago earth was created, how many walls and fences were created with it??

Would that not suggest that we as people are free to roam where ever we want?? Like Kung Fu boy!!!
ooh wow, that actually made me think. (seriously)

i never considered the viewpoint of 'nobody can own the earth so we are all entitled to roam, move and live wherever we choose' before. i like it.
but, that leads to a negation of property rights... of all 'property' and i don't like that at some level...




...might make a post about this if i remember ;)

ooh wow, that actually made me think. (seriously)

i never considered the viewpoint of 'nobody can own the earth so we are all entitled to roam, move and live wherever we choose' before. i like it.
but, that leads to a negation of property rights... of all 'property' and i don't like that at some level...



I've gotta say that I own my house and if some m*therf*kka comes in then there getting a swift kick up the jacksi.....But that's kind of the point as well....it's not about extremism....more careful thought....or is that caring thought??

Here's a notion,

How old is the earth??? 3 Billion years old?? (unless your some sort of fundamentalist dude in which 12,000)....

Anyways when all those years ago earth was created, how many walls and fences were created with it??

Would that not suggest that we as people are free to roam where ever we want?? Like Kung Fu boy!!!


The great Sovereign Almighty made the Earth about six thousand years ago.


As for the fact we ought to be free to roam, wrong. He made the tribes of the world, and scattered them across the world.

It dosn't but I balive that there is an atude that only whites are racist, any white who said anything nasty about a black would be immidetly called a racist, notice there are no white muscisions like tha? But if you look at a lot of black music, for example, you'll see plenty of remarks about whites.

The enlightened PC will say this is positive racism, some kind of 'empowerment' minoritys are at liberal to enjoy, that the white majority cant, the truth is but they are too shit scared to say anything in case they get bashed by these minoritys.

The great Sovereign Almighty made the Earth about six thousand years ago.


Actually he/she made it six BILLION years ago, as it says in the good book, each year is as a day to my father, so speaking figuratively, each thousand could really be a billion.

The enlightened PC will say this is positive racism, some kind of 'empowerment' minoritys are at liberal to enjoy, that the white majority cant, the truth is but they are too shit scared to say anything in case they get bashed by these minoritys.
Yeah, because ALL minorities are thugs who go around beating people up. :rolleyes:

Yeah, because ALL minorities are thugs who go around beating people up. :rolleyes:

The ones Im talking about do, I dont know what your on about.

The ones Im talking about do, I dont know what your on about.
Oh really, which ones are they?
I live in Australia Blakes7. I know what I'm going on about.

The great Sovereign Almighty made the Earth about six thousand years ago.


As for the fact we ought to be free to roam, wrong. He made the tribes of the world, and scattered them across the world.

Sovereign almighty???

Sovereign almighty???


God...