Immigration Question

[Papewaio]

My remark about racism was directed at another member who presumed I wished to see Britain only inhabited by tall white people, I found it of questionable quantity.

My question wasn't aimed at them being white, my question was which. At what point do you choose the dial back point. A year for instance: 2008, 1958, 1888, 1068, -2008?

My question is what is your definition of reasonable limits of descent?

Also what is the point of only allowing those who have forebears in a country to immigrate back?

And do you block just genes and not memes?

[Incongruous]

My question wasn't aimed at them being white, my question was which. At what point do you choose the dial back point. A year for instance: 2008, 1958, 1888, 1068, -2008?

My question is what is your definition of reasonable limits of descent?

Also what is the point of only allowing those who have forebears in a country to immigrate back?

And do you block just genes and not memes?

Ok, lets take a step back and consider the dates which you have used and the peoples involved. The last large and meaningful influx of people upon the Island of Great Britain before the end of the War was the Norman (hold onto your hats) INVASION. Now, I am fairly sure this rules out any form of Anglo-Saxon/ English immigration policy being taken into consideration much, much less the actual consent of the English.

People like to point to the various waves of previous mas immigration to the Island and how they have changed the ethnic and cultural shape of Britain, nicely leaving out the part that they carried the Sword not the Passport before them, unless you fall for the modernist rubbish of men like Mr. Prior (sp?).

As we have all agreed upon, these "immigrants" read violent conquerers drmatically altered the lands society. This was not in fact due to some arrangement with the locals about cultural enrichment and multiculturalism as is rather pathetically pointed to but never drawn plain in these analogies, because it occured after generations of repression, mass murder and enslavement. Lets please keep modernist fantasies of The Brotherhood of Man out of this, we are all smarter than that.

Now, with this historical context of Britain "multiculturalism" prior to the mass immigration of the 50's, we can see any comparison between the two is bollocks save one factor. The social and cultural conflict and upheaval it causes.

You can decray this point all you want but I would call you a liar if you say it is not true. It is an ever present part of my and your nature that we seek to form groups with kindred folk, we enrich and strengthen these through actual historical toil, and fanciful narratives. This is a concept as old as Humanity.
It is the case that when these groups are disrupted by newcomers and their culture, usually, in history it is due to violence or conflict of some nature.

Therefore, to sit back and expect a nation steeped within a long running national narrative to calmly accept an intrusion of external peoples whom posess a different narrative of identity and culture, is absurd.
It is a product of absurdity and it will end badly.

I hope thsi outlines a my beliefs, however repugnent to you, in a light of thoughtfullness and not reactionary emotions or racism.

[Fragony]

Now, with this historical context of Britain "multiculturalism" prior to the mass immigration of the 50's, we can see any comparison between the two is bollocks save one factor. The social and cultural conflict and upheaval it causes.

Don't get me wrong I agree with you but that is a rather poor historical context you picked the norman invasion was more like norman settling, it wasn't nearly as violent as people believe and not nearly as acute, it took centuries.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I'm glad some of you don't control immigration policies of your countries.

[seireikhaan]

Bopa, I guess I'm going to sum up my feelings in a single question:

What causes social unrest due to immigration? The immigrants trying to alter local culture, or the reaction of the native citizens(/governmental reaction as part of this)?

[Fragony]

edit lol huh?

[seireikhaan]

And I am going to answer are you kidding me??

answer, not that much, but a good living

Again, Fragony, you must consider I am an American, and hence my experiences with immigration are going to be quite different than that of Europeans.

[Papewaio]

Ok, lets take a step back and consider the dates which you have used and the peoples involved. The last large and meaningful influx of people upon the Island of Great Britain before the end of the War was the Norman (hold onto your hats) INVASION. Now, I am fairly sure this rules out any form of Anglo-Saxon/ English immigration policy being taken into consideration much, much less the actual consent of the English.

People like to point to the various waves of previous mas immigration to the Island and how they have changed the ethnic and cultural shape of Britain, nicely leaving out the part that they carried the Sword not the Passport before them, unless you fall for the modernist rubbish of men like Mr. Prior (sp?).

Warfare certainly changes the ruling class. But with the Normans in particular they were know to assimilate in a couple of generations. They were also know as very accepting of other cultures. Just look at what happened in Sicily. So they are not the best choice of Sword =/= integration.

As we have all agreed upon, these "immigrants" read violent conquerers drmatically altered the lands society. This was not in fact due to some arrangement with the locals about cultural enrichment and multiculturalism as is rather pathetically pointed to but never drawn plain in these analogies, because it occured after generations of repression, mass murder and enslavement. Lets please keep modernist fantasies of The Brotherhood of Man out of this, we are all smarter than that.

A lot did change but as with most Norman lands the flux went both ways. Warfare is the easiest points to see changes, but there was steady changes all along. Yes there is violence in all societies, it does not mean that all social change has been promoted by violence or violence in isolation. Yes we do have violent histories and they should not be ignored, they should not be looked at in isolation either.

Now, with this historical context of Britain "multiculturalism" prior to the mass immigration of the 50's, we can see any comparison between the two is bollocks save one factor. The social and cultural conflict and upheaval it causes.

I think you will find that warfare has more of an upheaval then mass immigration. Also you might in fact be fight mass immigration vs source of immigration. After all the colonies have been supplying people back to Britain as long as colonies have existed. I'm so sure that it is part of the cultural mix that you can even find title characters of mass media outlets describing this very phenomena. Colonial migration has been occurring as long as Britain has been colonising.

You can decray this point all you want but I would call you a liar if you say it is not true. It is an ever present part of my and your nature that we seek to form groups with kindred folk, we enrich and strengthen these through actual historical toil, and fanciful narratives. This is a concept as old as Humanity.
It is the case that when these groups are disrupted by newcomers and their culture, usually, in history it is due to violence or conflict of some nature.

Not even remotely correct for every person. Something like 80%+ of second generation Asian immigrants to Australia marry outside their 'kindred folk'. Probably because by the time they are second generation their kindred is any other Aussie.

Consider that I am Welsh/Swedish. Or more accurately: Welsh (+Scottish, + Irish, +French) / Swedish (+English) while my son has all that + Taiwan + China. I am a walking, talking gene soup of proof positive that your statement is incorrect.

End of the day there is a bigger gene step between man and woman then there is between any other grouping of humans.

Therefore, to sit back and expect a nation steeped within a long running national narrative to calmly accept an intrusion of external peoples whom posess a different narrative of identity and culture, is absurd.
It is a product of absurdity and it will end badly.

What like finally being able to beat Australia at the Olympics?

A country that is a third of the size but has a quarter of its citizens born overseas. Yet we seem to be bubbling along quite nicely. Sure we have idiots from around the globe, we also have some very nice people of all cultures.

I hope thsi outlines a my beliefs, however repugnent to you, in a light of thoughtfullness and not reactionary emotions or racism.

What I think you need to do is not just look at the loud negatives. Look at the positives of immigration. Food for me is the best starting point to get to know another culture. Generally I start with the pastries and sweets, then the alcohol. Belgium how I love thee.

[Incongruous]

I am always bombarded by the BBC, the Government and my friends about the positives of immigration, I have decided that they are mostly rose tinted views.

With the Norman invasion I was talking about the massive impact it had upon the culture of England, which was massive, you must admit. The only way that came about was through conquest, not pasive immigration policy on the part of the English. Thus comparing historical influxes to modern immigration is often a bogus analogy.

I don't care what happens in the Olympics, they are a farce and the fact that they ahve been held in Nazi Germany and Communist China gives plenty evidence that they are bollocks.

As for my statement about "kindred folk", well I will say it to myself.
A nation like Aussie (or even NZ) is young and founded upon the memory of recent immigration and colonisation. England has national and social narrative older than Hungary. It is much harder to dislodge it through passive mass immigration, indeed it seems to cause friction.

Britain will soon be striggling under the weight of its population, and yet some here think that it is a good idea to let more people in. Why? An absurd modernist belief in multiculturalism, something which the British people from the start had no say in, and when they dared talk about it "Racialist! Racialist!" was thrown at them. Enoch Powell, a man who is now seen a racist bigot (although he adored Indian people and culture), saw the problem with multiculturalism, he was thrown to the dogs for it.

[KukriKhan]

Over here, we thrive on immigration. Our whole concept of being derives from a constant influx of newcomers willing to work hard and play by the rules, contribute your 'old country' 's wisdom, while adapting to this new place - a nation-wide bus terminal, as it were.

But I see no reason for other countries to imitate that plan (aside from Oz and Canada, maybe). Let the Dutch, German, Brits, French, Belgians... Chinese, Indian, Indonesian, Cambodian... be Dutch, German, Brit, French, Belgian, Chinese, Indian, Indonesian, Cambodian.

It's commendable that you open your borders and purses to war-refugees, and other folks in temporarily dire straights. I myself might be one of those guys someday. But, eventually, those folks - by definition, want to return home. Hunkering down in a ghetto, building resentment against the hand that feeds just seems silly.

[rory_20_uk]

"Thrive" is that the same place that is building a wall to keep Mexicans out, has several barriers to get a green card and even has some people acting as Militias at the Mexican border?

Look at the UK - or indeed Europe's - population density compared to your own. When you are approaching ours, then we'll see how keen you are.

[KukriKhan]

"Thrive" is that the same place that is building a wall to keep Mexicans out, has several barriers to get a green card and even has some people acting as Militias at the Mexican border?

Look at the UK - or indeed Europe's - population density compared to your own. When you are approaching ours, then we'll see how keen you are.

Yeah, I admit the two phrases are separated by lots of other words, but 'thrive' does go hand-in-glove with 'play by the rules'. Jumping the queue, to push ahead of the other guys wanting in (who played by the rules) is as wrong at the border as it is in the cafeteria line.

And I agree: we'll hit a saturation point eventually. I just think we're a generation or 4 away from that point today.