You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > High immigration levels prevent 'cohesive society'
November 21 2024 8.33pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

High immigration levels prevent 'cohesive society'

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 2 of 24 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

  

jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 06 Oct 15 12.10pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Oct 2015 11.57am

Trickle immigration is a good thing for the gene pool but the kind of numbers we have seen in the last 20 years have been insanely large. Shame on the decision makers for putting money before people.
My personal theory on this is that the pill is largely responsible for this. A rapidly declining birth rate in the last century plus two world wars has caused politicians to panic and encourage large numbers of tax paying, cheap labour from abroad. The EU free movement laws have made everything worse.
It's simple. We need to restrict immigration and encourage people to have more children.
Unfortunately, it is probably to late to mend the cultural schisms that we have created. Only extreme measures can change that.

I'd agree with this, more or less. The problem isn't really with migration, refugees etc, that's all more or less sustainable.

The problem is that around 500,000 migrate to the UK each year, and around 225,000 emigrate each year. That's an unsustainable increase, and needs to be curbed. 42% of that figure comes from inside the EU, 58% from outside - and the vast majority is for work.

The problem is that migration to the UK has been adapted by successive governments to fulfill the demands of corporate interests, rather than society, and consequently, this undermines social cohesion (rapid, large scale change, rather than gradual).


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
sydtheeagle Flag England 06 Oct 15 12.16pm Send a Private Message to sydtheeagle Add sydtheeagle as a friend

Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Oct 2015 11.07am

Quote sydtheeagle at 06 Oct 2015 10.08am

I would suggest that people's response to immigration rather than the fact of immigration is what determines the nature of society.

So our society would have mosques and Islamic extremism here even if there had been no immigration?

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.
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Hoof Hearted 06 Oct 15 12.18pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 12.10pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Oct 2015 11.57am

Trickle immigration is a good thing for the gene pool but the kind of numbers we have seen in the last 20 years have been insanely large. Shame on the decision makers for putting money before people.
My personal theory on this is that the pill is largely responsible for this. A rapidly declining birth rate in the last century plus two world wars has caused politicians to panic and encourage large numbers of tax paying, cheap labour from abroad. The EU free movement laws have made everything worse.
It's simple. We need to restrict immigration and encourage people to have more children.
Unfortunately, it is probably to late to mend the cultural schisms that we have created. Only extreme measures can change that.

I'd agree with this, more or less. The problem isn't really with migration, refugees etc, that's all more or less sustainable.

The problem is that around 500,000 migrate to the UK each year, and around 225,000 emigrate each year. That's an unsustainable increase, and needs to be curbed. 42% of that figure comes from inside the EU, 58% from outside - and the vast majority is for work.

The problem is that migration to the UK has been adapted by successive governments to fulfill the demands of corporate interests, rather than society, and consequently, this undermines social cohesion (rapid, large scale change, rather than gradual).



Don't forget also that immigrants have children which can double/triple the effect on population.

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 06 Oct 15 12.20pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 06 Oct 2015 12.16pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Oct 2015 11.07am

Quote sydtheeagle at 06 Oct 2015 10.08am

I would suggest that people's response to immigration rather than the fact of immigration is what determines the nature of society.

So our society would have mosques and Islamic extremism here even if there had been no immigration?

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.

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
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
bright&wright Flag 06 Oct 15 12.29pm Send a Private Message to bright&wright Add bright&wright as a friend

If high immigration worked so well why don't people go to West Croydon for a weekend away instead of Cornwall?

Pick a town/city with high immigration in the UK and I guarantee you - it's a sh*thole.

 

'We are going to make a little bit of history here’ Mr. J. Ertl.
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
sydtheeagle Flag England 06 Oct 15 12.31pm Send a Private Message to sydtheeagle Add sydtheeagle as a friend

Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Oct 2015 12.20pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 06 Oct 2015 12.16pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Oct 2015 11.07am

Quote sydtheeagle at 06 Oct 2015 10.08am

I would suggest that people's response to immigration rather than the fact of immigration is what determines the nature of society.

So our society would have mosques and Islamic extremism here even if there had been no immigration?

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.

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)

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.
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
DanH Flag SW2 06 Oct 15 12.37pm Send a Private Message to DanH Add DanH as a friend

Quote bright&wright at 06 Oct 2015 12.29pm

If high immigration worked so well why don't people go to West Croydon for a weekend away instead of Cornwall?

Pick a town/city with high immigration in the UK and I guarantee you - it's a sh*thole.


One of the most ridiculous points ever made on here. Good work.

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 06 Oct 15 12.41pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 06 Oct 2015 12.31pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Oct 2015 12.20pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 06 Oct 2015 12.16pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Oct 2015 11.07am

Quote sydtheeagle at 06 Oct 2015 10.08am

I would suggest that people's response to immigration rather than the fact of immigration is what determines the nature of society.

So our society would have mosques and Islamic extremism here even if there had been no immigration?

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.

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)

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.

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
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards Hrolf The Ganger Flag 06 Oct 15 12.56pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Quote Hoof Hearted at 06 Oct 2015 12.18pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 12.10pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Oct 2015 11.57am

Trickle immigration is a good thing for the gene pool but the kind of numbers we have seen in the last 20 years have been insanely large. Shame on the decision makers for putting money before people.
My personal theory on this is that the pill is largely responsible for this. A rapidly declining birth rate in the last century plus two world wars has caused politicians to panic and encourage large numbers of tax paying, cheap labour from abroad. The EU free movement laws have made everything worse.
It's simple. We need to restrict immigration and encourage people to have more children.
Unfortunately, it is probably to late to mend the cultural schisms that we have created. Only extreme measures can change that.

I'd agree with this, more or less. The problem isn't really with migration, refugees etc, that's all more or less sustainable.

The problem is that around 500,000 migrate to the UK each year, and around 225,000 emigrate each year. That's an unsustainable increase, and needs to be curbed. 42% of that figure comes from inside the EU, 58% from outside - and the vast majority is for work.

The problem is that migration to the UK has been adapted by successive governments to fulfill the demands of corporate interests, rather than society, and consequently, this undermines social cohesion (rapid, large scale change, rather than gradual).



Don't forget also that immigrants have children which can double/triple the effect on population.

Something that many ignore. The fact is that it is immigrants that tend to have the most children and that will change the face of Britain in a very short time.
Some might say, so what, but remember that those people vote and their opinion will effect the wider population before too long. It has already begun.

Aside from that, imagine a growing problem where various religious groups carry on their little squabbles reflecting what is happening in the Middle East or Asia for example. It is a scary thought.
The trouble is that most people just aren't enlightened enough to accept each others differences or cast off their religious ball and chain in pursuit of a more cohesive society. America has had a multi ethnic society for many more years than us and there is no sigh of meaningful cohesion. In general, people still stick to their racial/religious groups. Sadly this does not bode well for the future of Britain.

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 06 Oct 15 1.43pm

Quote bright&wright at 06 Oct 2015 12.29pm

If high immigration worked so well why don't people go to West Croydon for a weekend away instead of Cornwall?

Pick a town/city with high immigration in the UK and I guarantee you - it's a sh*thole.

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]
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Forest Hillbilly Flag in a hidey-hole 06 Oct 15 1.44pm Send a Private Message to Forest Hillbilly Add Forest Hillbilly as a friend

How many Palace players are immigrants ?

Speroni,...Cabaye,...Bolasie,...CY Lee,... Jedinak, Hangeland,...

and even though Palace have one of the highest proportions of English players, that is why the English national side is shlt.

 

I disengage, I turn the page.
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 06 Oct 15 1.57pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Oct 2015 12.56pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 06 Oct 2015 12.18pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 12.10pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Oct 2015 11.57am

Trickle immigration is a good thing for the gene pool but the kind of numbers we have seen in the last 20 years have been insanely large. Shame on the decision makers for putting money before people.
My personal theory on this is that the pill is largely responsible for this. A rapidly declining birth rate in the last century plus two world wars has caused politicians to panic and encourage large numbers of tax paying, cheap labour from abroad. The EU free movement laws have made everything worse.
It's simple. We need to restrict immigration and encourage people to have more children.
Unfortunately, it is probably to late to mend the cultural schisms that we have created. Only extreme measures can change that.

I'd agree with this, more or less. The problem isn't really with migration, refugees etc, that's all more or less sustainable.

The problem is that around 500,000 migrate to the UK each year, and around 225,000 emigrate each year. That's an unsustainable increase, and needs to be curbed. 42% of that figure comes from inside the EU, 58% from outside - and the vast majority is for work.

The problem is that migration to the UK has been adapted by successive governments to fulfill the demands of corporate interests, rather than society, and consequently, this undermines social cohesion (rapid, large scale change, rather than gradual).



Don't forget also that immigrants have children which can double/triple the effect on population.

Something that many ignore. The fact is that it is immigrants that tend to have the most children and that will change the face of Britain in a very short time.
Some might say, so what, but remember that those people vote and their opinion will effect the wider population before too long. It has already begun.

Aside from that, imagine a growing problem where various religious groups carry on their little squabbles reflecting what is happening in the Middle East or Asia for example. It is a scary thought.
The trouble is that most people just aren't enlightened enough to accept each others differences or cast off their religious ball and chain in pursuit of a more cohesive society. America has had a multi ethnic society for many more years than us and there is no sigh of meaningful cohesion. In general, people still stick to their racial/religious groups. Sadly this does not bode well for the future of Britain.

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]
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 2 of 24 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > High immigration levels prevent 'cohesive society'