I was expecting overclockers forum users to say "kick them out'. Pleasantly surprised the opposite is the case....
The whole issue of immigration has very often been presented as a false dichotomy, with the only options being "no restrictions, no integration and preferential treatment for immigrants" and "no immigration at all", with the former being dominant and the latter being portrayed as insane racism.
In reality, immigration is nowhere near that simple. There's a world of difference between invited immigration of relatively small numbers of people who mostly integrate (and if they don't their children do) and mass immigration without any integration or any intent of immigration, surviving over generations and acquiring major political power. The latter is a road to conquest(*) and
that's what many people are objecting to. The same political ideology is also infecting descendents of the genuine immigrants, trying (with some degree of success) to seperate them out from Britain as a hostile political bloc.
* Yes, I do mean that literally. Conquest is political and cultural, not military. Military alone can only result in occupation, not conquest. Traditionally military force has usually been used as a means of acquiring enough power to impose political and cultural change but it isn't the only means of acquiring that power, especially in a modern democracy where it can be done far more easily with numbers and politics. There are historical examples, though, such as England. The most complete conquest was, rather obviously, by the English during the migration period (note the name) and there's little evidence of major military force being required. Some, but nothing like the amount used in the Norman conquest (which was far less complete or lasting as a conquest).
- thanks.
