I'm not really clear how your response relates to my point. I presume what you're saying is that mosques and extremism, which are divisive (well, the former is not but the latter certainly is) would not be here without immigration and therefore immigration is divisive. But the same point holds...and you make it for me. Mosques are not divisive...they are simply buildings. But people's response to Mosques, in the form of extremism on either side...is divisive. There have been synagogues and orthodox churches in the UK as a result of immigration since time immemorial. None have led to extremism of the sort we're experiencing now. Therefore, look to something other than the simple fact of immigration if you want to understand why.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

BNP Offices are simply buildings too.

Do you think immigration should be limited in any way? If so, why?

Edited by leggedstruggle (06 Oct 2015 12.27pm)

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Mosques are places of worship that have become sometimes misused but their intent is good. BNP offices exist solely to propagate hate. So while yes, in one sense they are both buildings your point is fatuous; they are not the same as each other.

With regard to your second question I will try to answer in due course but what I would say is that there is no blanket response to any question about society. "All immigration is unconditionally good" is as stupid a statement as "all immigration is unconditionally bad." I wouldn't let either everybody or nobody in. It's a question of where you draw the line.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

LOL. Their 'intent' is to peddle a 'faith' that is undemocratic, misogynist, anti-semitic, anti-gay, anti-apostate - basically intolerant of anything that opposes their dogmas, including death threats to authors and illustrators. Meanwhile you say the BNP exists solely to propagate hate - have they marched calling for the death of any writers?

(I look forward to reading your considered opinions as to why we need immigration controls.)

Edited by leggedstruggle (06 Oct 2015 12.54pm)

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Plenty of people come to London for the Weekend, from all over the country, and abroad, its probably the single biggest tourist spot in the UK. Plus in terms of migration London is pretty busy.

I'm waiting for matt_himself to jump in and defend the slighted honor of Croydon.

The question really is how popular a tourist destination was West Croydon before the 60s.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Interestingly though this only really applies to the first generation, less to the second generation and almost never to the third generation. The whole 60s paranoia of how the Blacks or Indian's or pakistanis will replace the whites as the majority, never materialized. And its because its based on a false concept, the idea that its economically sustainable - usually in terms of first generation migrants, it was - because they entered into family businesses, and children could contribute, and the extended family could provide child care. However their kids generally grew up and went either into the family business or careers and jobs, and then larger families become economically unsustainable. By the third generation, the 'family business' tends to be shunned, because the income from outside is better.

Its an issue, but not one to be overly concerned about. Plenty of white people who are British have very large families, usually with multiple partners and no economic sustainability.

The US is a poor model of comparison. The US has always had a massive racial and religious problem, even until very recently, on a scale that never was seen here. Its also worth noting that Chinese and Indian migrants have generally intergrated very well, where as those who tend to be the target of the most prejudice, black and Muslim, have the worst.

Racism is definitely a two way street, but the kind of prejudice exhibited in the 60s and 70s, against West Indians, well its not surprising that it created communities that were isolated and wanted nothing to do with society. And we're doing the same thing with Muslim communities, by targeting whole groups, because of issues with a few.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]