The all encompassing BNP thread - keep all crap in here.

vee70 said:
Is it the basis of our society to be accepting of all cultures? Since when?
How many places with a strong cultural identity have a liberal approach to immigration? Do the two ever go together? I've asked before for examples of such places. I don't think that they exist.
Click to expand...

What is a strong cultural identity? If you mean somewhere like Japan, then that is because they have Jus sanguinis citizenship policy.

I'd argue that the USA, Canada and France all have quite a liberal approach to immigration. France certainly has a strong cultural identity, that is if you count eating well and drinking wine as culture.

If you believe we had a strong cultural identity before the waves of immigration since the 50's please define it.
 
Rich_L said:
Do you not understand the concept of maintaining the 'moral high ground' to promote and create an aspiration to change?
Click to expand...
There are other ways to effect change without some wishy washy aspirational morality. Understanding the concept and agreeing with it are not one and the same.
Rich_L said:
How are people who 'refuse to change at all' supposed to change for the better if they are met with the same hostility and intractability? The native should rise above it because that is what differentiates our country, and our culture, from the rest of the authoritarian tinpot countries where freedoms are severely limited.
Click to expand...
So we should instead encourage tinpot mentality to continue in the minds of those who come here.
Rich_L said:
It's not even a weak cultural identity, it's the people who desperately rely on a form of cultural identity to compensate for their own personal insecurities. Who feel uncomfortable if they aren't surrounded by people that look like them. Who think that if people are speaking in a different language they are the target and are being mocked.
Click to expand...
Indeed, I guess that is why the immigrants choose to flock together then ;)
Rich_L said:
If it wasn't a change of surroundings, I bet their insecurities would manifest in some other target, immigration is just a soft target.
Click to expand...
ROFL. You couldn't make it up.
Rich_L said:
Changing our open and free culture at the first sign of challenge under the guise of 'protecting it' from other cultures, thereby losing one of the most crucial factors which differentiates and promotes our culture, would be the most epically retarded move one could possibly conceive of.
Click to expand...
Alternatively losing our culture by refusing to take steps to "protect" it could also be epically retarded.
Rich_L said:
There's a quote and a half.
Click to expand...
More of a vacuous emotive sound byte really.
 
SteveOBHave said:
You move to this country, alone with your children, but struggle to find your way around. There are people who have been here longer than you so you move close to them for support. You and your children now have a place where you can live safely and also have a future that doesn't involve constant oppression and fear for your life. Where do you see this as being wrong? Where do you feel that that situation precludes gradual eventual integration into the society?
Click to expand...

Define gradual?

Look at places like Southall (London), parts of Leeds and so on, They have been mainly Indian or Pakistani for over 50 years now.

Here are stats for Southall in London:
Total 2001 Population: 89,275
Born outside UK: 56.51%

Race
White British: 8.73%
Asian: Indian: 54.18%
Asian: Pakistani: 11.16%

Religion
Sikh: 36.58%
Hindu: 20.35%
Christian: 19.9%
Muslim: 18.86%
Click to expand...
Even the railway station sign in Southall is in Punjab ffs.


I feel that 50 years is more than enough time to integrate into the wider British populous .. and I can speak from example.
As I said before I have a mixture of different bloods, and relatives who lived in India (Goa, so they are Portuguese descendants) moved to London recently.
Naturally they first moved to a mainly Asian area as they felt more comfortable there at first - however within a couple of years they were happy and used to the UK so they in fact moved out of the place because they didn't simply want to live within their little community anymore (and my Aunt was even working for the London Social Services - involved in their frontline work together with the Police - this is someone who had JUST moved to the UK).
 
Monkey Puzzle said:
No need to get uppity. I didn't realise you'd used such a ridiculous suggestion of what we should aspire to as a country. Now you've clarified things. Thanks. Oh, and you're right; it wasn't complex. It was painfully simple.
Click to expand...

I did not suggest that we should aspire to anything. I merely asked for his examples and clarification of strong national identities that have liberal immigration policies......... It is still painfully simple.
 
Evangelion said:
It depends where you're from. I'm a foreigner, and I had to buy an expensive visa to enter the UK. I also had to show that I had £5,000 in my bank account, because I would not be eligible for any benefits or social housing.
Click to expand...

i had to have the same as you, where are you from and how long have you been here? I am South African
 
Damn rite you shouldn't get any benefits straight away though...Unless you've been paying taxes in the country you whence came from =/ (if that's the correct word to use i dunno.)
 
vee70 said:
I have not expressed an issue with it. I have expressed it as being human nature. I have asked why it is ok to accept immigrants following human nature but OK to accept natives following human nature and not wanting disparate cultural immigrant groups in their country......
Click to expand...

I assume you mean 'NOT OK to accept navies following...'. I think that we should be seeking to be above a soulely 'human nature' type of approach to the situation. I'm not suggesting that we abandon our own cultural identity or social identity entirely but that we have the flexibility to accept that there are other cultures out there and not be do hardline or 'anti' to those existing in parallel to ours.

vee70 said:
I haven't. I have asked why only the immigrant human nature is OK and the native human nature is not......
What is the contribution? Why is a diverse society better than a non diverse one? IF a diverse one is better than why are the immigrants ironically choosing to live in a non diverse one?
Click to expand...

Their contribution to our society? Many things such as a worldly awareness, their cuisine and fashion, their technology, their games, their art. Imagine a country where you couldn't go down the road and get come Chinese or Thai or god forbid a curry! It would be a dull world without cultural diversity.

vee70 said:
It seems cut and dried to me. In your view immigration is good, end of story, resistance to immigration is bad, end of story. My questions is simply about why one set of natural human reactions are OK and the other and directly comparable set are not......
Only by someone who fails to read what is infron of them and who chooses to read into the test things that are simply not there. I think it is a worrying trend that anything that even questions immigration and asks for reasons as to why it is beneficial can be construed or interpreted by some as "an extreme view".
Click to expand...

Ah then you misinterpret my point. I firmly believe that there needs to be stronger and more stringent policies (and have said so in previous posts) however a blanket removal or repatriation of immigrants and non whites is not only not the answer but plain wrong and ultimately detremental to the very core of British society and their standing in the international community.

vee70 said:
Then what is the point you are making? You are pro immigration and expect the native population to roll over and accept the alien nature of immigrants because it is not easy for them to adapt and integrate. You see any reluctance on the behalf of the natives to adapt as racist? Is that your point?
Click to expand...

No I see the wholesale removal and repatriation of any and all people not fitting a specific ideal as racist. This is very different to there needing to be the immigration policies re-addressed within the UK and the EU. Two very different animals.
 
SteveOBHave said:
I assume you mean 'NOT OK to accept navies following...'. I think that we should be seeking to be above a soulely 'human nature' type of approach to the situation. I'm not suggesting that we abandon our own cultural identity or social identity entirely but that we have the flexibility to accept that there are other cultures out there and not be do hardline or 'anti' to those existing in parallel to ours.
Click to expand...
Yes, sorry I did mean "not OK". I don't think that higher demands should be made of natives than immigrants, I don't think that is fair. If you go abroad do you expect the natives of that country to adapt to you or do you seek to conform to their cultural norms?
SteveOBHave said:
Their contribution to our society? Many things such as a worldly awareness, their cuisine and fashion, their technology, their games, their art. Imagine a country where you couldn't go down the road and get come Chinese or Thai or god forbid a curry! It would be a dull world without cultural diversity.
Click to expand...
Given that it is now a very small world we don't need to have a massive immigrant population in order to sample a curry. It find it amusing that food is always brought up as a benefit of immigration. Art? I can't say that foreign art has enriched my life, nor that of anyone I know. Perhaps you could elaborate? Worldly awareness? Again we have 24/7 news so being aware of other cultures is not a problem. Fashion? I'm not planning to adopt wearing a burkha anytime soon. We're a small planet we can get all the cultural diversity required by either turning on the TV or travelling places on holiday. We don't "need" it brought to our doorsteps and I doubt many people feel enriched by it at all.


SteveOBHave said:
Ah then you misinterpret my point. I firmly believe that there needs to be stronger and more stringent policies (and have said so in previous posts) however a blanket removal or repatriation of immigrants and non whites is not only not the answer but plain wrong and ultimately detremental to the very core of British society and their standing in the international community.
Click to expand...
Then what is the answer? Even if no further new immigration occurred the amount of people coming in as new wives etc would still lead to massive immigration. For 25% of people born in the UK last year to have mothers who were born abroad is hardly negligible immigration only of course they aren't immigrants as they were born here.

Why do you feel immigration needs stricter controls? What are the downsides to immigration in your opinion?
SteveOBHave said:
No I see the wholesale removal and repatriation of any and all people not fitting a specific ideal as racist. This is very different to there needing to be the immigration policies re-addressed within the UK and the EU. Two very different animals.
Click to expand...
I don't recall advocating such a policy at any time?
 
timmothy said:
so it is all the muslims scrounging the benifits, thanks for the link.Finally some proof
Click to expand...

You do know that percentages are meaningless for working out benefit costs right? Which is bigger, the 5% of unemployed christians or 12-17% of unemployed muslims? Who will cost the country more?
 
Dolph said:
You do know that percentages are meaningless for working out benefit costs right? Which is bigger, the 5% of unemployed christians or 12-17% of unemployed muslims? Who will cost the country more?
Click to expand...


Well lets make it easy shall we.
Lets say they are all single(no kids)claiming dole,the muslims are still 50%(looking at that chart)
higher then all the rest(but not put together)
 
deuse said:
Well lets make it easy shall we.
Lets say they are all single(no kids)claiming dole,the muslims are still 50%(looking at that chart)
higher then all the rest(but not put together)
Click to expand...

Let's make it even simpler... Muslims only make up circa 3% of the population (2.7% from the last census, so I'm being generous and rounding it up).

Christians, by contrast, make up around 71% of the population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom