[effofex]

(Original post by Vortexbubbles)
I said go over to their country not here. You would find a different perception over there as to who they want to hire. I am fully aware of the wars between both European Protestants and European Catholics. The ireland conflict is over the protestants invading what was once catholic only land. It's a religious thing, they see them as invaders to a place that was mostly catholic at one point.

The majority of the workforce in the United Arab Emirates is foreign and non-Moslem.

[effofex]

(Original post by tufc)
Are you talking about people who work there or people who live there.

People who work there. Very few people (if any) actually live there.

There are some apartments at Westferry and near the roundabout at Blackwell, but they are not technically within the Canary Wharf Estate.

[MagicNMedicine]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
I had the pleasure of spending an extended period of time in Tower Hamlets today, and the problem with immigration is far worse than anyone could have ever envisioned. Without even exaggerating, the demographic of the area was slanted heavily in favour of the Muslims - a bad enough issue. This was compounded by the segregation of the Muslim community, creating clear no-go areas for non-Muslims. I would estimate that I saw upwards of 200 women and children wearing the niqab.

How is this multiculturalism? All that has happened is a community has segregated itself and made clear that they want very little to do with the native population. Yet, the liberals profess that immigration is the greatest event in the history of mankind. Have such people failed to ever set foot inside the areas worst affected by immigration? Do they live in a homogeneous society, where they have no interaction with "outsiders", but want to appear progressive?

Whats wrong with this?

If all the Muslims are together its a homogenous society which as we are often told by the right wingers means there will be no crime there.

[SpiggyTopes]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
I had the pleasure of spending an extended period of time in Tower Hamlets today, and the problem with immigration is far worse than anyone could have ever envisioned. Without even exaggerating, the demographic of the area was slanted heavily in favour of the Muslims - a bad enough issue. This was compounded by the segregation of the Muslim community, creating clear no-go areas for non-Muslims. I would estimate that I saw upwards of 200 women and children wearing the niqab.

How is this multiculturalism? All that has happened is a community has segregated itself and made clear that they want very little to do with the native population. Yet, the liberals profess that immigration is the greatest event in the history of mankind. Have such people failed to ever set foot inside the areas worst affected by immigration? Do they live in a homogeneous society, where they have no interaction with "outsiders", but want to appear progressive?

(Original post by NB_ide)
This is an island and so your ancestors were immigrants, too. Also, many doctors are children of immigrants and without them the NHS would collapse.

I have just demolished your argument. Thank you.


Posted from my iPhone in Cambridge

Immigration is perfectly acceptable. Immigration without integration is not.

You 'demolished' a different argument which he didn't put forward.

[Norton1]

(Original post by Vortexbubbles)
You may challange his opinon with a civil logical answer. I agree with you in that his analysis is rather brief but he's just sharing his experience and wants to get some feedback from other logical people.
Your statement above, It's not challanging that's just being an anti-social prick.

Wow. Who died and made you King of TSR?

[Redolent]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
the liberals profess that immigration is the greatest event in the history of mankind.

No they don't, and also there is no homogeneous group called "the liberals"

[Vortexbubbles]

(Original post by effofex)
The majority of the workforce in the United Arab Emirates is foreign and non-Moslem.

Actually there are more muslim workers in UAE. The Indian Expatriates are on the decline and just because they are indian does not mean they are not muslim. Although Indians are still their biggest single migrant group but immigrantion from pakistan and Bangladesh greatly outweigh even that combined.

[Vortexbubbles]

(Original post by Redolent)
No they don't, and also there is no homogeneous group called "the liberals"

Liberialism is a way of thinking. Stating "The Liberals" is refering to the demographic group that has liberal\socialist values.

[Vortexbubbles]

(Original post by Norton1)
Wow. Who died and made you King of TSR?

I am no king and certainly no admin\mod of TSR however there is a certain mutal code-of-conduct that all human beings should follow. It's called being civil and respecting what others have to say. Otherwise you probably shouldn't be in a serious debate\topic.

[Jonathan75]

And your problem is?

[Norton1]

(Original post by Vortexbubbles)
I am no king and certainly no admin\mod of TSR however there is a certain mutal code-of-conduct that all human beings should follow. It's called being civil and respecting what others have to say. Otherwise you probably shouldn't be in a serious debate\topic.

You do know this is the internet and not the letters pages of 'The Times'? Whatever gave you the impression this was a serious debate? I don't respect what the OP has to say because it is fundamentally stupid with undertones of racism and xenophobia.

[Redolent]

(Original post by Vortexbubbles)
Liberialism is a way of thinking. Stating "The Liberals" is refering to the demographic group that has liberal\socialist values.

But to claim the liberals "profess" this or that as "the greatest event in the history of mankind" is completely wrong because nowhere in the definition of "liberalism" is there a necessary agreement on something being the greatest event in the history of mankind.

I just thought it was some cheap hyperbole is all.

[A.J10]

(Original post by Vortexbubbles)
Liberialism is a way of thinking. Stating "The Liberals" is refering to the demographic group that has liberal\socialist values.

I think he meant that they're not one group all conspiring together for a single goal.

Also, whoever it is who's doing it, are you deliberately spelling it Moslem for some reason?

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my E15i

[Imperial_Maniac]

(Original post by NB_ide)
This is an island and so your ancestors were immigrants, too. Also, many doctors are children of immigrants and without them the NHS would collapse.

I have just demolished your argument. Thank you.


Posted from my iPhone in Cambridge

Complete rubbish, you haven't made a point against the OP's argument, just spouted a load of unsubstantiated bull****.

The OP is talking about recent immigration, arguing that everyone is an immigrant is as sensible as saying that everyone should be given African citizenship because we originally came from Africa, ie; ridiculous.

The NHS is put under more strain by immigration, having a bigger population requires a more effective NHS, and the NHS is currently being cut whilst the numbers of people increase, it can't take the strain. Also, doctors with foreign degrees that aren't up to british standards can't work in the NHS. Doctors also need to be able to communicate effectively with other members of staff and patients, so the ability to speak english fluently is a must.

Besides this, the OP is talking about the failure of multiculturalism, not immigration as a whole. Multiculturalism was intended to allow the whole population to work together an celebrate different cultures. Instead with have different areas with completely different cultures that completely fail to integrate.

Multiculturalism has failed.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Imperial_Maniac)
Besides this, the OP is talking about the failure of multiculturalism, not immigration as a whole. Multiculturalism was intended to allow the whole population to work together an celebrate different cultures. Instead with have different areas with completely different cultures that completely fail to integrate.

Integrate into what?

You are not friends with everyone you meet because there are parties (native Britons) in this country who are socially/psychologically incompatible with you. Hence, it can be argued, by your logic, that you are not integrated into their sociocultural lifestyles and they are not integrated into yours. Strangely, you do not seem to class your very limited social group as an example of "societal disintegration" or a "failure of multiculturalism". Why do friendship/social groups only become problematic when non-native Britons are involved?

Multiculturalism has failed.

Multiculturalism has worked since people have started communicating with each other; if you believe multiculturalism has failed you believe social interaction has failed.

[Foo.mp3]

The Guardian reading classes + Political leaders haven't generally had to live in/had much experience of such environments in the past. Only now is it becoming clear to these, pivotal, classes just how grave the situation they have created is

Over 10 million people are segregated according to ethnicity, age or social characteristics in the UK. More still are segregated along cultural/religious lines, and economic segregation effects only add to this (as many members of ethnic minorities are within the same wealth class)

Social preferences, however mild, result in segregation (Schelling Approach) - if you can't eliminate/homogenise/harmonise certain key facets of identity (including language, culture, customs, religion) then people will inexorably self-organise along these lines. Discrete choice models show that even when an outside agent literally swoops in and redistributes people more evenly throughout a population, they will re-concentrate over time, along the same lines, provided a threshold level of mobility exists

Many of those posting in this thread fail to grasp the difference between a trickle of people who are (socially/culturally) inculcated through time and no longer self-organise on the basis of a 'them and us' distinction, and a flood of people, many of whom cannot be/refuse to be integrated along one or more of a number of different lines such as those noted above

[seanyboy501]

I think the topic starter Formerly Helpful is referring to the street level impact of immigration rather than the big positives of multiculturalism.

Yes it must be difficult for those who are intimidated by the great change that has taken place in their communities, which makes it unsurprising that people are joining the EDL in areas most affected by the growth of Islam in their respective communities (although I'd never dream of joining such a group). For people fear what they don't know. People are bound to react to hundreds of people dressing differently and speaking a different language to themselves.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Foo.mp3)
Over 10 million people are segregated according to ethnicity, age or social characteristics in the UK. More still are segregated along cultural/religious lines, and economic segregation effects only add to this (as many members of ethnic minorities are within the same wealth class)

What is this figure?

Social preferences, however mild, result in segregation (Schelling Approach) - if you can't eliminate/homogenise/harmonise certain key facets of identity (including language, culture, customs, religion) then people will inexorably self-organise along these lines. Discrete choice models show that even when an outside agent literally swoops in and redistributes people more evenly throughout a population, they will re-concentrate over time, along the same lines, provided a threshold level of mobility exists

We all choose to associate with people who are socially/psychologically similar to us and dissociate from those who are socially/psychologically dissimilar to us; you are not friends with everyone you have ever met, your parents are not friends with everyone they have ever met, your grandparents are not friends with everyone they have ever met, etc. Why is this such a problem when it is an inherent component of social interaction (because we are all psychologically idiosyncratic)? People are not the same and it is impossible in a free state to make them the same. Are the people you meet but don't see as viable candidates for friendship also a social problem?

A democracy is by and large the most desired system because it accounts for these inherent differences in individuals' social preferences and personalities.

[NB_ide]

(Original post by Imperial_Maniac)
Complete rubbish, you haven't made a point against the OP's argument, just spouted a load of unsubstantiated bull****.

The OP is talking about recent immigration, arguing that everyone is an immigrant is as sensible as saying that everyone should be given African citizenship because we originally came from Africa, ie; ridiculous.

The NHS is put under more strain by immigration, having a bigger population requires a more effective NHS, and the NHS is currently being cut whilst the numbers of people increase, it can't take the strain. Also, doctors with foreign degrees that aren't up to british standards can't work in the NHS. Doctors also need to be able to communicate effectively with other members of staff and patients, so the ability to speak english fluently is a must.

Besides this, the OP is talking about the failure of multiculturalism, not immigration as a whole. Multiculturalism was intended to allow the whole population to work together an celebrate different cultures. Instead with have different areas with completely different cultures that completely fail to integrate.

Multiculturalism has failed.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Hey, why don't you go and talk about this to your friend Adolf? My bus driver is an Asian man so without immigration I couldn't get to work in the morning. What then?

I have just systematically torn down your entire world view. You're welcome.

[Foo.mp3]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
What is this figure?

10,000,000; this figure is a large number

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Why is this such a problem when it is an inherent component of social interaction (because we are all psychologically idiosyncratic)?

It's a problem where the impact is that one ends up with increasingly disconnected segments of society ~ misunderstanding/mistrust/friction, and where social/economic outcomes then persist through generations as a function of that concentrating effect

(Original post by whyumadtho)
People are not the same and it is impossible in a free state to make them the same

Most of us don't mind diversity, it's where people concentrate, segregate, and isolate themselves/other members of their communities for whatever reason/along whatever lines that we envisage problems such as those noted above

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Are the people you meet but don't see as viable candidates for friendship also a social problem?

Not sure where all this friendship stuff is coming from? This isn't about being a good pal, it's about being a good citizen

(Original post by whyumadtho)
A democracy is by and large the most desired system because it accounts for these inherent differences in individuals' social preferences and personalities

We haven't finished exploring the different systems of governance out there but yes it's the 'least worst' solution currently available to us

Social preferences are fine, until those social preferences begin to manifest as innately antisocial; at this point they become deleterious for people on both sides of these nascent divides