High immigration levels prevent 'cohesive society'

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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 5 of 24 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Oct 15 9.51am
Quote leggedstruggle at 07 Oct 2015 7.54am Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Oct 2015 5.34pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 3.41pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Oct 2015 3.30pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 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. I agree with that to a degree but separatism as a result of prejudice cannot be seen as a white caused problem. Prejudice is universal as you imply and any one going to a new country should not be expecting an easy ride. The whole concept of tolerance is a wonderful ideal but you cannot expect Westerners to accept female genital mutilation, honour killings, witchcraft or any other absurdity that immigrants bring with them. There are some cultural traits that must not be accepted. Many are unlawful for one thing. Your assertion about numbers is dependent on immigration slowing or stopping. If there is a constant stream of migrants then there will always be a new first generation of migrants to have a disproportionate number of offspring. There are definitely some cultures that integrate better than others and a lesson should be learned from that. Some cultures obviously need to try harder. I think the problem initially stems from the way that people tend to think those horrors are the norm in that community. They exist, and they need to be stamped out, but a lot of people who came here maybe to get away from that, or where victims who've come here so their kids could avoid it, end up being stigmatized by the hate these things inspire, and that is dangerous, because it drives those people closer into insular groups, and the more 'fantatical' minority who retain such practices. Things like honor killings are terrible, but they are fairly rare in the UK, and they aren't the fault of a whole community but of those few who can't let the old world ways go (arguably the least integrated). But the more we as a community isolate and demonise parts of our community, the more those kinds of people hold sway. When you look at the people in a ethnic community, you generally find that those who are least willing to integrate are those who cling to their old identity. Most want a balance, they don't necessarily want to let go of their origins, but they also want to embrace some of the freedoms of their new home. It would be extremely unfair to blame an entire community for certain cultural traits but equally we must not be apologists for unacceptable acts. The acceptable level for honour killings is zero as with all the other horrors mentioned. It would be unrealistic to expect any migrant to give up their identity in one generation as many Brits on the continent would attest and it is not a pride in ones origins that are the problem as much as respecting the culture of the country you now live in and it's laws. The problem with humans is they always find ways to divide themselves. That might be the natural way of things, in which case we are in for a rocky ride. If they want to keep their identity and take a pride in their origins, why don't Muslims migrate in large numbers to other Islamic countries, some of which are the richest in the world. Edited by leggedstruggle (07 Oct 2015 7.55am) Probably the same reason why a Protestant Christian wouldn't want to go an live in certain areas of Belfast or Glasgow. A lot of Muslims want to practice their faith and not live in oppressive regimes. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 07 Oct 15 9.51am

Quote leggedstruggle at 07 Oct 2015 7.54am

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Oct 2015 5.34pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 3.41pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Oct 2015 3.30pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 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.

I agree with that to a degree but separatism as a result of prejudice cannot be seen as a white caused problem. Prejudice is universal as you imply and any one going to a new country should not be expecting an easy ride.

The whole concept of tolerance is a wonderful ideal but you cannot expect Westerners to accept female genital mutilation, honour killings, witchcraft or any other absurdity that immigrants bring with them. There are some cultural traits that must not be accepted. Many are unlawful for one thing.

Your assertion about numbers is dependent on immigration slowing or stopping. If there is a constant stream of migrants then there will always be a new first generation of migrants to have a disproportionate number of offspring.

There are definitely some cultures that integrate better than others and a lesson should be learned from that. Some cultures obviously need to try harder.

I think the problem initially stems from the way that people tend to think those horrors are the norm in that community. They exist, and they need to be stamped out, but a lot of people who came here maybe to get away from that, or where victims who've come here so their kids could avoid it, end up being stigmatized by the hate these things inspire, and that is dangerous, because it drives those people closer into insular groups, and the more 'fantatical' minority who retain such practices.

Things like honor killings are terrible, but they are fairly rare in the UK, and they aren't the fault of a whole community but of those few who can't let the old world ways go (arguably the least integrated). But the more we as a community isolate and demonise parts of our community, the more those kinds of people hold sway.

When you look at the people in a ethnic community, you generally find that those who are least willing to integrate are those who cling to their old identity. Most want a balance, they don't necessarily want to let go of their origins, but they also want to embrace some of the freedoms of their new home.

It would be extremely unfair to blame an entire community for certain cultural traits but equally we must not be apologists for unacceptable acts. The acceptable level for honour killings is zero as with all the other horrors mentioned.

It would be unrealistic to expect any migrant to give up their identity in one generation as many Brits on the continent would attest and it is not a pride in ones origins that are the problem as much as respecting the culture of the country you now live in and it's laws.

The problem with humans is they always find ways to divide themselves. That might be the natural way of things, in which case we are in for a rocky ride.

If they want to keep their identity and take a pride in their origins, why don't Muslims migrate in large numbers to other Islamic countries, some of which are the richest in the world.

Edited by leggedstruggle (07 Oct 2015 7.55am)

Probably the same reason why a Protestant Christian wouldn't want to go an live in certain areas of Belfast or Glasgow. A lot of Muslims want to practice their faith and not live in oppressive regimes.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

SwalecliffeEagle Swalecliffe 07 Oct 15 9.52am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Oct 2015 9.43am Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Oct 2015 9.21am This country has bent over backward to make immigrants welcome. The voices of discontent have grown louder recently and that is hardly surprising given the circumstances, but how much effort does the average Muslim make to blend in with our society ? I don't wish to demonise all Muslims but when moving to a new country the onus is on you to fit in. We frown on Brits who move to France and Spain and create little Englands but for some reason some struggle to apply the same scrutiny when the boot is on the other foot. In my experience they generally seem to get jobs, pay tax, open business and do all the general things that most families seem to do. In my experience as well the UK's had a traditional response to migrants over my life time, and that's been racism and prejudice, admittedly by a minority. But if you're going to damn Muslims by those who actively act against the UK, you should judge the UK response to migrants by the minority as well. Yes, there are bad Muslims in the UK, there are terrible people in every ethnic group, many of whom desire power and influence over others and see hate as a means of achieving that. That is by no means a unique Muslim phenomena. I often find myself agreeing with many of your points, but this is not your finest hour. What on earth are you talking about?
Alert a moderator to this post

SwalecliffeEagle

Swalecliffe 07 Oct 15 9.52am

Send a Private Message to SwalecliffeEagle

Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Oct 2015 9.43am

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Oct 2015 9.21am

This country has bent over backward to make immigrants welcome. The voices of discontent have grown louder recently and that is hardly surprising given the circumstances, but how much effort does the average Muslim make to blend in with our society ?
I don't wish to demonise all Muslims but when moving to a new country the onus is on you to fit in.

We frown on Brits who move to France and Spain and create little Englands but for some reason some struggle to apply the same scrutiny when the boot is on the other foot.

In my experience they generally seem to get jobs, pay tax, open business and do all the general things that most families seem to do. In my experience as well the UK's had a traditional response to migrants over my life time, and that's been racism and prejudice, admittedly by a minority. But if you're going to damn Muslims by those who actively act against the UK, you should judge the UK response to migrants by the minority as well.

Yes, there are bad Muslims in the UK, there are terrible people in every ethnic group, many of whom desire power and influence over others and see hate as a means of achieving that.

That is by no means a unique Muslim phenomena.

I often find myself agreeing with many of your points, but this is not your finest hour. What on earth are you talking about?

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 07 Oct 15 9.55am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Oct 2015 9.51am Quote leggedstruggle at 07 Oct 2015 7.54am Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Oct 2015 5.34pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 3.41pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Oct 2015 3.30pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 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. I agree with that to a degree but separatism as a result of prejudice cannot be seen as a white caused problem. Prejudice is universal as you imply and any one going to a new country should not be expecting an easy ride. The whole concept of tolerance is a wonderful ideal but you cannot expect Westerners to accept female genital mutilation, honour killings, witchcraft or any other absurdity that immigrants bring with them. There are some cultural traits that must not be accepted. Many are unlawful for one thing. Your assertion about numbers is dependent on immigration slowing or stopping. If there is a constant stream of migrants then there will always be a new first generation of migrants to have a disproportionate number of offspring. There are definitely some cultures that integrate better than others and a lesson should be learned from that. Some cultures obviously need to try harder. I think the problem initially stems from the way that people tend to think those horrors are the norm in that community. They exist, and they need to be stamped out, but a lot of people who came here maybe to get away from that, or where victims who've come here so their kids could avoid it, end up being stigmatized by the hate these things inspire, and that is dangerous, because it drives those people closer into insular groups, and the more 'fantatical' minority who retain such practices. Things like honor killings are terrible, but they are fairly rare in the UK, and they aren't the fault of a whole community but of those few who can't let the old world ways go (arguably the least integrated). But the more we as a community isolate and demonise parts of our community, the more those kinds of people hold sway. When you look at the people in a ethnic community, you generally find that those who are least willing to integrate are those who cling to their old identity. Most want a balance, they don't necessarily want to let go of their origins, but they also want to embrace some of the freedoms of their new home. It would be extremely unfair to blame an entire community for certain cultural traits but equally we must not be apologists for unacceptable acts. The acceptable level for honour killings is zero as with all the other horrors mentioned. It would be unrealistic to expect any migrant to give up their identity in one generation as many Brits on the continent would attest and it is not a pride in ones origins that are the problem as much as respecting the culture of the country you now live in and it's laws. The problem with humans is they always find ways to divide themselves. That might be the natural way of things, in which case we are in for a rocky ride. If they want to keep their identity and take a pride in their origins, why don't Muslims migrate in large numbers to other Islamic countries, some of which are the richest in the world. Edited by leggedstruggle (07 Oct 2015 7.55am) Probably the same reason why a Protestant Christian wouldn't want to go an live in certain areas of Belfast or Glasgow. A lot of Muslims want to practice their faith and not live in oppressive regimes. A very large number of Muslims in this country would like to see the introduction of Sharia Law which would move this country towards being an oppressive regime. mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 07 Oct 15 9.55am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Oct 2015 9.51am

Quote leggedstruggle at 07 Oct 2015 7.54am

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Oct 2015 5.34pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 3.41pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Oct 2015 3.30pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 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

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

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

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.

There are definitely some cultures that integrate better than others and a lesson should be learned from that. Some cultures obviously need to try harder.

The problem with humans is they always find ways to divide themselves. That might be the natural way of things, in which case we are in for a rocky ride.

If they want to keep their identity and take a pride in their origins, why don't Muslims migrate in large numbers to other Islamic countries, some of which are the richest in the world.

Edited by leggedstruggle (07 Oct 2015 7.55am)

A very large number of Muslims in this country would like to see the introduction of Sharia Law which would move this country towards being an oppressive regime.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 07 Oct 15 9.57am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Oct 2015 9.37am Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Oct 2015 4.48pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 4.16pm Quote bright&wright at 06 Oct 2015 3.50pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 2.01pm Quote Forest Hillbilly at 06 Oct 2015 1.44pm 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. Zaha, Souare, Sako, Delanney, Chammakh, Appiah, McCarthy (Paddy - I think). Brilliant. Naming a dozen footballers, who are paid tens of thousands of pounds, definitely confirms that mass immigration works. Congrats. I don't think mass immigration works. For immigration to work, you need to balance the changes across time, rather than have nearly twice as many migrants as emigrants. What should we do about it then? Restrict immigration that relates specifically to employment in the UK, ideally we'd need to half it. In response we should also consider relocating people who are long term unemployed to fill vacancies in the UK with a reasonable minimum wage - Initially funded by the tax revenue and then gradually phased out over a period of time. If necessary this might involve leaving the EU, if memberstates resist the idea of restricting the 'Right of Movement' for working to quota figures. Excellent proposals Jamie. I'm sure Teresa May would be in accord. mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 07 Oct 15 9.57am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Oct 2015 9.37am

Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Oct 2015 4.48pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 4.16pm

Quote bright&wright at 06 Oct 2015 3.50pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 2.01pm

Quote Forest Hillbilly at 06 Oct 2015 1.44pm

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.

Zaha, Souare, Sako, Delanney, Chammakh, Appiah, McCarthy (Paddy - I think).

Brilliant. Naming a dozen footballers, who are paid tens of thousands of pounds, definitely confirms that mass immigration works.

Congrats.

I don't think mass immigration works. For immigration to work, you need to balance the changes across time, rather than have nearly twice as many migrants as emigrants.

What should we do about it then?

Restrict immigration that relates specifically to employment in the UK, ideally we'd need to half it. In response we should also consider relocating people who are long term unemployed to fill vacancies in the UK with a reasonable minimum wage - Initially funded by the tax revenue and then gradually phased out over a period of time.

If necessary this might involve leaving the EU, if memberstates resist the idea of restricting the 'Right of Movement' for working to quota figures.

Excellent proposals Jamie. I'm sure Teresa May would be in accord.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Oct 15 9.58am
Quote SwalecliffeEagle at 07 Oct 2015 9.49am I loathe migration on a mass scale, and I loathe those who defend it ten times more. That said, I have never thought of migration as being the reason why jobs are hard to come by. Without doubt, that is just blaming others for one's own failings. In any case, foreigners do the jobs we don't want to. It just makes me laugh when certain people harp on about the wondrous economic benefits that migration brings. They are the same sanctimonious, woolly-headed fools who relentlessly complain that the economy fails to benefit the 99%. If that is so, why should I give a flying fudge what migration does for the economy??? In periods of economic boom that's certainly true, they do the jobs no one else wants. Unfortunately a result of this, is when you have downturns, those jobs are no longer paying a sufficient wage. Certain people like to then turn on the migrants or convenient scape goats, to avoid actually having to point at the people in charge, who were to blame. EU Working migration worked during a boom period, because they were filling jobs that were being created, now they're competing for the same jobs, its easier to turn on the migrant or the muslims, rather than those responsible. Especially when they decide to elect consecutive governments who's interests are not with them, but the various corporate interests that benefited in the first place. After all, Conservative (and Labour) voters don't actually want to admit that their parties did absolutely nothing to address this problem. The truth is that their interest lies with Corporations, not the public. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 07 Oct 15 9.58am

Quote SwalecliffeEagle at 07 Oct 2015 9.49am

I loathe migration on a mass scale, and I loathe those who defend it ten times more. That said, I have never thought of migration as being the reason why jobs are hard to come by. Without doubt, that is just blaming others for one's own failings. In any case, foreigners do the jobs we don't want to. It just makes me laugh when certain people harp on about the wondrous economic benefits that migration brings. They are the same sanctimonious, woolly-headed fools who relentlessly complain that the economy fails to benefit the 99%. If that is so, why should I give a flying fudge what migration does for the economy???

In periods of economic boom that's certainly true, they do the jobs no one else wants. Unfortunately a result of this, is when you have downturns, those jobs are no longer paying a sufficient wage.

Certain people like to then turn on the migrants or convenient scape goats, to avoid actually having to point at the people in charge, who were to blame.

EU Working migration worked during a boom period, because they were filling jobs that were being created, now they're competing for the same jobs, its easier to turn on the migrant or the muslims, rather than those responsible. Especially when they decide to elect consecutive governments who's interests are not with them, but the various corporate interests that benefited in the first place.

After all, Conservative (and Labour) voters don't actually want to admit that their parties did absolutely nothing to address this problem. The truth is that their interest lies with Corporations, not the public.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Oct 15 10.06am
Quote leggedstruggle at 07 Oct 2015 9.55am Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Oct 2015 9.51am Quote leggedstruggle at 07 Oct 2015 7.54am Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Oct 2015 5.34pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 3.41pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Oct 2015 3.30pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 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. I agree with that to a degree but separatism as a result of prejudice cannot be seen as a white caused problem. Prejudice is universal as you imply and any one going to a new country should not be expecting an easy ride. The whole concept of tolerance is a wonderful ideal but you cannot expect Westerners to accept female genital mutilation, honour killings, witchcraft or any other absurdity that immigrants bring with them. There are some cultural traits that must not be accepted. Many are unlawful for one thing. Your assertion about numbers is dependent on immigration slowing or stopping. If there is a constant stream of migrants then there will always be a new first generation of migrants to have a disproportionate number of offspring. There are definitely some cultures that integrate better than others and a lesson should be learned from that. Some cultures obviously need to try harder. I think the problem initially stems from the way that people tend to think those horrors are the norm in that community. They exist, and they need to be stamped out, but a lot of people who came here maybe to get away from that, or where victims who've come here so their kids could avoid it, end up being stigmatized by the hate these things inspire, and that is dangerous, because it drives those people closer into insular groups, and the more 'fantatical' minority who retain such practices. Things like honor killings are terrible, but they are fairly rare in the UK, and they aren't the fault of a whole community but of those few who can't let the old world ways go (arguably the least integrated). But the more we as a community isolate and demonise parts of our community, the more those kinds of people hold sway. When you look at the people in a ethnic community, you generally find that those who are least willing to integrate are those who cling to their old identity. Most want a balance, they don't necessarily want to let go of their origins, but they also want to embrace some of the freedoms of their new home. It would be extremely unfair to blame an entire community for certain cultural traits but equally we must not be apologists for unacceptable acts. The acceptable level for honour killings is zero as with all the other horrors mentioned. It would be unrealistic to expect any migrant to give up their identity in one generation as many Brits on the continent would attest and it is not a pride in ones origins that are the problem as much as respecting the culture of the country you now live in and it's laws. The problem with humans is they always find ways to divide themselves. That might be the natural way of things, in which case we are in for a rocky ride. If they want to keep their identity and take a pride in their origins, why don't Muslims migrate in large numbers to other Islamic countries, some of which are the richest in the world. Edited by leggedstruggle (07 Oct 2015 7.55am) Probably the same reason why a Protestant Christian wouldn't want to go an live in certain areas of Belfast or Glasgow. A lot of Muslims want to practice their faith and not live in oppressive regimes. A very large number of Muslims in this country would like to see the introduction of Sharia Law which would move this country towards being an oppressive regime. About 28%, which of course would also mean that 72% don't want to do so. For a religious group that's actually fairly low. Plenty of Christians would probably respond that they'd want the ten commandments in UK law. Plenty of Christians seemed to be very keen on the idea that Gay Marriage and Unions should not be law, even though the law is secular and separate from the auspice of Church. Look at abortion in Ireland, how many Catholics and Protestants see that as a religious issue for law, rather than one of choice. Unsurprisingly, people who believe in xGuff want more xGuff in their lives. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 07 Oct 15 10.06am

Quote leggedstruggle at 07 Oct 2015 9.55am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Oct 2015 9.51am

Quote leggedstruggle at 07 Oct 2015 7.54am

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Oct 2015 5.34pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 3.41pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Oct 2015 3.30pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 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

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

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

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.

There are definitely some cultures that integrate better than others and a lesson should be learned from that. Some cultures obviously need to try harder.

The problem with humans is they always find ways to divide themselves. That might be the natural way of things, in which case we are in for a rocky ride.

If they want to keep their identity and take a pride in their origins, why don't Muslims migrate in large numbers to other Islamic countries, some of which are the richest in the world.

Edited by leggedstruggle (07 Oct 2015 7.55am)

A very large number of Muslims in this country would like to see the introduction of Sharia Law which would move this country towards being an oppressive regime.

About 28%, which of course would also mean that 72% don't want to do so. For a religious group that's actually fairly low. Plenty of Christians would probably respond that they'd want the ten commandments in UK law.

Plenty of Christians seemed to be very keen on the idea that Gay Marriage and Unions should not be law, even though the law is secular and separate from the auspice of Church.

Look at abortion in Ireland, how many Catholics and Protestants see that as a religious issue for law, rather than one of choice.

Unsurprisingly, people who believe in xGuff want more xGuff in their lives.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 07 Oct 15 10.09am
Quote serial thriller at 06 Oct 2015 9.29pm This is why the success of Corbyn (closing the gap on the Tories' lead ever since he got in to office) is really not that surprising. Lets put things into perspective shall we? The Tory lead over Labour in May was some 2.5 Million votes. Corbyn has attracted a few thousand politically motivated people to stump up £3 to join his party. Come May 2020 the election won't be decided by which party has the greatest paid up membership, it will be decided by votes from people that are not formally affiliated to any party. Since Corbyn seems less credible on the economy than Miliband/Balls was it seems clear to me and many others that Labour will not be elected.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 07 Oct 15 10.09am

Quote serial thriller at 06 Oct 2015 9.29pm

This is why the success of Corbyn (closing the gap on the Tories' lead ever since he got in to office) is really not that surprising.

Lets put things into perspective shall we?

The Tory lead over Labour in May was some 2.5 Million votes.

Corbyn has attracted a few thousand politically motivated people to stump up £3 to join his party.

Come May 2020 the election won't be decided by which party has the greatest paid up membership, it will be decided by votes from people that are not formally affiliated to any party.

Since Corbyn seems less credible on the economy than Miliband/Balls was it seems clear to me and many others that Labour will not be elected.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Oct 15 10.19am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 07 Oct 2015 10.09am Quote serial thriller at 06 Oct 2015 9.29pm This is why the success of Corbyn (closing the gap on the Tories' lead ever since he got in to office) is really not that surprising. Lets put things into perspective shall we? The Tory lead over Labour in May was some 2.5 Million votes. Corbyn has attracted a few thousand politically motivated people to stump up £3 to join his party. Come May 2020 the election won't be decided by which party has the greatest paid up membership, it will be decided by votes from people that are not formally affiliated to any party. Since Corbyn seems less credible on the economy than Miliband/Balls was it seems clear to me and many others that Labour will not be elected. True that, of course I wouldn't necessarily write Corbyn off either. There are five years, he's proven surprisingly popular. I think if he makes it to an election he's in which a decent shout. Especially if the Lib Dems recover a lot of their lost support, and he can win back lefties from the Greens, Scotland and UKIP. If I was putting money on the next election, then the Conservatives, are definitely the smart bet. Especially if the Conservatives don't deliver on an EU referendum (or it goes 'against' them). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 07 Oct 15 10.19am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 07 Oct 2015 10.09am

Quote serial thriller at 06 Oct 2015 9.29pm

This is why the success of Corbyn (closing the gap on the Tories' lead ever since he got in to office) is really not that surprising.

Lets put things into perspective shall we?

The Tory lead over Labour in May was some 2.5 Million votes.

Corbyn has attracted a few thousand politically motivated people to stump up £3 to join his party.

Come May 2020 the election won't be decided by which party has the greatest paid up membership, it will be decided by votes from people that are not formally affiliated to any party.

Since Corbyn seems less credible on the economy than Miliband/Balls was it seems clear to me and many others that Labour will not be elected.

True that, of course I wouldn't necessarily write Corbyn off either. There are five years, he's proven surprisingly popular. I think if he makes it to an election he's in which a decent shout. Especially if the Lib Dems recover a lot of their lost support, and he can win back lefties from the Greens, Scotland and UKIP.

If I was putting money on the next election, then the Conservatives, are definitely the smart bet. Especially if the Conservatives don't deliver on an EU referendum (or it goes 'against' them).

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

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 07 Oct 15 10.26am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Oct 2015 10.19am Quote Hoof Hearted at 07 Oct 2015 10.09am Quote serial thriller at 06 Oct 2015 9.29pm This is why the success of Corbyn (closing the gap on the Tories' lead ever since he got in to office) is really not that surprising. Lets put things into perspective shall we? The Tory lead over Labour in May was some 2.5 Million votes. Corbyn has attracted a few thousand politically motivated people to stump up £3 to join his party. Come May 2020 the election won't be decided by which party has the greatest paid up membership, it will be decided by votes from people that are not formally affiliated to any party. Since Corbyn seems less credible on the economy than Miliband/Balls was it seems clear to me and many others that Labour will not be elected. True that, of course I wouldn't necessarily write Corbyn off either. There are five years, he's proven surprisingly popular. I think if he makes it to an election he's in which a decent shout. Especially if the Lib Dems recover a lot of their lost support, and he can win back lefties from the Greens, Scotland and UKIP. If I was putting money on the next election, then the Conservatives, are definitely the smart bet. Especially if the Conservatives don't deliver on an EU referendum (or it goes 'against' them). I would definitely not put money on Labour making any gains in Scotland. The Jocks smell blood with devo-max/independence and won't be deserting SNP anytime soon. That being the case, a significant part of Labour's old traditional support is lost forever.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 07 Oct 15 10.26am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Oct 2015 10.19am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 07 Oct 2015 10.09am

Quote serial thriller at 06 Oct 2015 9.29pm

This is why the success of Corbyn (closing the gap on the Tories' lead ever since he got in to office) is really not that surprising.

Lets put things into perspective shall we?

The Tory lead over Labour in May was some 2.5 Million votes.

Corbyn has attracted a few thousand politically motivated people to stump up £3 to join his party.

Come May 2020 the election won't be decided by which party has the greatest paid up membership, it will be decided by votes from people that are not formally affiliated to any party.

Since Corbyn seems less credible on the economy than Miliband/Balls was it seems clear to me and many others that Labour will not be elected.

If I was putting money on the next election, then the Conservatives, are definitely the smart bet. Especially if the Conservatives don't deliver on an EU referendum (or it goes 'against' them).

I would definitely not put money on Labour making any gains in Scotland.

The Jocks smell blood with devo-max/independence and won't be deserting SNP anytime soon.

That being the case, a significant part of Labour's old traditional support is lost forever.

Alert a moderator to this post

mezzer Main Stand, Block F, Row 20 seat 1... 07 Oct 15 10.34am
I've had 100-1 with Paddy Power the next election is won by a party that doesn't exist yet. Disaffected Lib Dems and disaffected Labour will create SDP 2 and claim the centre left ground and woo those who can't bring themselves to vote for Corbyn, Conservatives or UKIP. Politicians depend on power to survive. Lots of recent MPs are struggling for oxygen at the moment and have no route back as things stand. Mark my words. 100-1? Like buying money..... Living down here does have some advantages. At least you can see them cry.
Alert a moderator to this post

mezzer

Main Stand, Block F, Row 20 seat 1... 07 Oct 15 10.34am

I've had 100-1 with Paddy Power the next election is won by a party that doesn't exist yet.

Disaffected Lib Dems and disaffected Labour will create SDP 2 and claim the centre left ground and woo those who can't bring themselves to vote for Corbyn, Conservatives or UKIP. Politicians depend on power to survive. Lots of recent MPs are struggling for oxygen at the moment and have no route back as things stand.

Mark my words. 100-1? Like buying money.....

Living down here does have some advantages. At least you can see them cry.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 07 Oct 15 10.36am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Oct 2015 9.43am Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Oct 2015 9.21am This country has bent over backward to make immigrants welcome. The voices of discontent have grown louder recently and that is hardly surprising given the circumstances, but how much effort does the average Muslim make to blend in with our society ? I don't wish to demonise all Muslims but when moving to a new country the onus is on you to fit in. We frown on Brits who move to France and Spain and create little Englands but for some reason some struggle to apply the same scrutiny when the boot is on the other foot. In my experience they generally seem to get jobs, pay tax, open business and do all the general things that most families seem to do. In my experience as well the UK's had a traditional response to migrants over my life time, and that's been racism and prejudice, admittedly by a minority. But if you're going to damn Muslims by those who actively act against the UK, you should judge the UK response to migrants by the minority as well. Yes, there are bad Muslims in the UK, there are terrible people in every ethnic group, many of whom desire power and influence over others and see hate as a means of achieving that. That is by no means a unique Muslim phenomena. All things are relative Jamie. You will always get morons who want to lash out at others but I would suggest that Britain is one of the least racist or prejudiced countries. I agree entirely that most Muslims or any other migrant generally go about their business but you aren't going to make many friends outside of your community if you wear a yashmak or make your wife walk several paces behind you on the high street. This kind of stuff is totally abhorrent to many people. This is Britain and we have been discouraging misogyny for many years now. Most will not be apologists for it in the name of tolerance.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

07 Oct 15 10.36am

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Oct 2015 9.43am

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Oct 2015 9.21am

We frown on Brits who move to France and Spain and create little Englands but for some reason some struggle to apply the same scrutiny when the boot is on the other foot.

In my experience they generally seem to get jobs, pay tax, open business and do all the general things that most families seem to do. In my experience as well the UK's had a traditional response to migrants over my life time, and that's been racism and prejudice, admittedly by a minority. But if you're going to damn Muslims by those who actively act against the UK, you should judge the UK response to migrants by the minority as well.

Yes, there are bad Muslims in the UK, there are terrible people in every ethnic group, many of whom desire power and influence over others and see hate as a means of achieving that.

That is by no means a unique Muslim phenomena.

All things are relative Jamie. You will always get morons who want to lash out at others but I would suggest that Britain is one of the least racist or prejudiced countries.
I agree entirely that most Muslims or any other migrant generally go about their business but you aren't going to make many friends outside of your community if you wear a yashmak or make your wife walk several paces behind you on the high street.
This kind of stuff is totally abhorrent to many people.
This is Britain and we have been discouraging misogyny for many years now. Most will not be apologists for it in the name of tolerance.

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 07 Oct 15 10.37am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Oct 2015 10.06am Quote leggedstruggle at 07 Oct 2015 9.55am Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Oct 2015 9.51am Quote leggedstruggle at 07 Oct 2015 7.54am Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Oct 2015 5.34pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 3.41pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Oct 2015 3.30pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 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. I agree with that to a degree but separatism as a result of prejudice cannot be seen as a white caused problem. Prejudice is universal as you imply and any one going to a new country should not be expecting an easy ride. The whole concept of tolerance is a wonderful ideal but you cannot expect Westerners to accept female genital mutilation, honour killings, witchcraft or any other absurdity that immigrants bring with them. There are some cultural traits that must not be accepted. Many are unlawful for one thing. Your assertion about numbers is dependent on immigration slowing or stopping. If there is a constant stream of migrants then there will always be a new first generation of migrants to have a disproportionate number of offspring. There are definitely some cultures that integrate better than others and a lesson should be learned from that. Some cultures obviously need to try harder. I think the problem initially stems from the way that people tend to think those horrors are the norm in that community. They exist, and they need to be stamped out, but a lot of people who came here maybe to get away from that, or where victims who've come here so their kids could avoid it, end up being stigmatized by the hate these things inspire, and that is dangerous, because it drives those people closer into insular groups, and the more 'fantatical' minority who retain such practices. Things like honor killings are terrible, but they are fairly rare in the UK, and they aren't the fault of a whole community but of those few who can't let the old world ways go (arguably the least integrated). But the more we as a community isolate and demonise parts of our community, the more those kinds of people hold sway. When you look at the people in a ethnic community, you generally find that those who are least willing to integrate are those who cling to their old identity. Most want a balance, they don't necessarily want to let go of their origins, but they also want to embrace some of the freedoms of their new home. It would be extremely unfair to blame an entire community for certain cultural traits but equally we must not be apologists for unacceptable acts. The acceptable level for honour killings is zero as with all the other horrors mentioned. It would be unrealistic to expect any migrant to give up their identity in one generation as many Brits on the continent would attest and it is not a pride in ones origins that are the problem as much as respecting the culture of the country you now live in and it's laws. The problem with humans is they always find ways to divide themselves. That might be the natural way of things, in which case we are in for a rocky ride. If they want to keep their identity and take a pride in their origins, why don't Muslims migrate in large numbers to other Islamic countries, some of which are the richest in the world. Edited by leggedstruggle (07 Oct 2015 7.55am) Probably the same reason why a Protestant Christian wouldn't want to go an live in certain areas of Belfast or Glasgow. A lot of Muslims want to practice their faith and not live in oppressive regimes. A very large number of Muslims in this country would like to see the introduction of Sharia Law which would move this country towards being an oppressive regime. About 28%, which of course would also mean that 72% don't want to do so. For a religious group that's actually fairly low. Plenty of Christians would probably respond that they'd want the ten commandments in UK law. Plenty of Christians seemed to be very keen on the idea that Gay Marriage and Unions should not be law, even though the law is secular and separate from the auspice of Church. Look at abortion in Ireland, how many Catholics and Protestants see that as a religious issue for law, rather than one of choice. Unsurprisingly, people who believe in xGuff want more xGuff in their lives. Depends what survey you quote - some have 60-70% wanting it,which would mean only 30% don't. Many Christian ministers are openly gay of course - it is almost compulsory in the more trendier parishes. Some Christian churches carry out gay 'marriages'. In contrast, Shria Law calls for the killing of gay people - in some Mulsim countries you are at risk of having a gay person fall on you while you are out walking when they are thrown off roofs. mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 07 Oct 15 10.37am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Oct 2015 10.06am

Quote leggedstruggle at 07 Oct 2015 9.55am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Oct 2015 9.51am

Quote leggedstruggle at 07 Oct 2015 7.54am

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Oct 2015 5.34pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 3.41pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Oct 2015 3.30pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 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

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

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

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.

There are definitely some cultures that integrate better than others and a lesson should be learned from that. Some cultures obviously need to try harder.

The problem with humans is they always find ways to divide themselves. That might be the natural way of things, in which case we are in for a rocky ride.

If they want to keep their identity and take a pride in their origins, why don't Muslims migrate in large numbers to other Islamic countries, some of which are the richest in the world.

Edited by leggedstruggle (07 Oct 2015 7.55am)

A very large number of Muslims in this country would like to see the introduction of Sharia Law which would move this country towards being an oppressive regime.

Plenty of Christians seemed to be very keen on the idea that Gay Marriage and Unions should not be law, even though the law is secular and separate from the auspice of Church.

Look at abortion in Ireland, how many Catholics and Protestants see that as a religious issue for law, rather than one of choice.

Unsurprisingly, people who believe in xGuff want more xGuff in their lives.

Depends what survey you quote - some have 60-70% wanting it,which would mean only 30% don't. Many Christian ministers are openly gay of course - it is almost compulsory in the more trendier parishes. Some Christian churches carry out gay 'marriages'. In contrast, Shria Law calls for the killing of gay people - in some Mulsim countries you are at risk of having a gay person fall on you while you are out walking when they are thrown off roofs.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 5 of 24 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

High immigration levels prevent 'cohesive society'

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors