Immigrants vs Immigrants

Those "very few countries" tend to be the ones with a >1% non-African population. I'm sure as more Chinese buy up Africa and continue living better than the locals there will be pogroms against them; there is already a lot of tension.

In the old-world the few non-white countries where minority groups are not only welcome but can live their lives similarly to how they live them back home (freedom or worship etc) tend to be in SE Asia (Singapore etc) and some of the FSU states in central Asia (Kazakhstan etc). Everywhere else the politicians try to keep their states as ethnically and culturally homogenous as they can.

Non whites clearly means immigrants. I'm sure none of those people in the first picture were born here. None whatsoever.

Well yes, it does pretty much. First or second generation immigrants in all probability, meaning that some are not British at all and the rest are merely civicly British.

And just look at the picture again and pause for a moment. That picture could be, in all fairness, any number of major cities throughout Europe or indeed some third-world shanty-town. That's what multiculturalism does, it makes everywhere look the same. Hope you're enjoying the diversity.

No I'm pretty sure that if they were born here and raised here and if they are citizens and their parents are citizens then that makes them British and not immigrants. Just as much as you or I (if you're British.) One of my very best friends is second generation British, she's British. No doubt about it. Born here to two immigrants who moved here as adults, raised here, educated here, and works here. The same could apply to any one of the people in that queue.

She has no ancestry, heritage and has not a thimble of British blood in her. She's civicly British and of foreign ethnicity.

She has no ancestry, heritage and has not a thimble of British blood in her. She's civicly British and of foreign ethnicity.

Does that go for third generation immigrants too? What if she and her Indian born husband have children, will they be British in your eyes? I think you'll find she is a British citizen, her ethnicity is irrelevant. In the same way that she isn't an immigrant, the same could be said for some of those people in the first picture in the OP. To assume they are immigrants because they are not white is a ridiculous assumption

What's British blood? You have no connection to the indigenous populations of the United Kingdom. You're a mix of lots of races. That doesn't suddenly become 'British blood'.

Studies have shown that the vast majority of white-British people share around three-quarters of their genes with ice-age hunter-gatherers. I'd say that's a fairly significant link to the indigenous people.

The fact is, the continuous population of this land was never significantly impacted by any instance of invaders/immigrants. Sure, numerous peoples landed here but the fact remains that none of them (that's NONE) came in huge numbers relative to the overall population of the time. That's why the overall gene pool wasn't changed very much. Any degree of honest research beyond that of a GCSE textbook will reveal this.

And I think you will find that I'm not denying any of that, read what I said.

From a practical and legal context the point about your friend being as British as you or I is correct but in any other context, due to her foreign descent, it is an utterly laughable notion. Ethnicity, along with a number of other things, is how national identity is defined. So a significant influx of foreigners, with different ethnicities, is a means of eroding that.

Whether those people in the photograph were born here is irrelevant. They may as well be immigrants because they are not identifiably British people. Furthermore, they have no link whatsoever to who the British are, certainly not in any historic or traditional sense. And as I said, that photograph could have been taken in one of a number of locations and is therefore a visual confirmation of the assault on British identity.
.

Fair enough...

It seems like your issue is more to do with ethnicity? Do you feel like your ethnic group is at risk from immigrant communities?

Saying "they may as well be immigrants" isn't the same. Nor does that make them less British. What is entirely relevant is that is that some of the people in that photograph may have been born here because it means that the use of it to scaremonger about immigration seems even more ridiculous.
You talk about the link to who the British are, but what exactly is British to you? Being born here clearly isn't enough so is it having family born here for more than three or four generations? Because that wouldn't make me completely British. Or do people have to be white to be British in your eyes?

My issue tends to be the extent of immigration and how white-British people are becoming minoritised in certain areas.



Given that I'm talking about descent, the answer to your question is a resounding yes. In my opinion, a person cannot be truly British if they don't descend from the ancient Britons or other stocks commonly associated with British people. This is who the British are, let's not be shy in admitting that. On that basis, it makes no difference how long a person lives here, you either have that heredity or you don't. Going back to your friend, if her children or grandchildren only breed within their own ethnicity then I wouldn't consider them to be truly British, other than from a formal perspective.

If a picture paints a thousand words, then that picture certainly does. Whilst not being entirely representative, it certainly hints at how the demographics of London have changed. Most people in London are of an ethnicity other than that of white-British. Over a third of London residents were born abroad. If that isn't an erosion of identity (in the historical sense) then I don't know what is. I believe it to be irrelevant whether those people were born here or not because they aren't British in the heredity sense and therefore contribute to the minoritisation of white-British people.

Are we now so PC that we have to pretty much deny our origins, ignore obvious distinctions and call everyone British so as not to upset someone?

This, this, this, this.

Funny enough, you are arguing with someone who has an Asian background. So obviously they will be offended.

I'm not offendesd, i totally understand where he is coming from. The)

Posted from TSR Mobile

My issue tends to be the extent of immigration and how white-British people are becoming minoritised in certain areas.



Given that I'm talking about descent, the answer to your question is a resounding yes. In my opinion, a person cannot be truly British if they don't descend from the ancient Britons or other stocks commonly associated with British people. This is who the British are, let's not be shy in admitting that. On that basis, it makes no difference how long a person lives here, you either have that heredity or you don't. Going back to your friend, if her children or grandchildren only breed within their own ethnicity then I wouldn't consider them to be truly British, other than from a formal perspective.

If a picture paints a thousand words, then that picture certainly does. Whilst not being entirely representative, it certainly hints at how the demographics of London have changed. Most people in London are of an ethnicity other than that of white-British. Over a third of London residents were born abroad. If that isn't an erosion of identity (in the historical sense) then I don't know what is. I believe it to be irrelevant whether those people were born here or not because they aren't British in the heredity sense and therefore contribute to the minoritisation of white-British people.

Are we now so PC that we have to pretty much deny our origins, ignore obvious distinctions and call everyone British so as not to upset someone?

This is arbitrary. My dad is black Caribbean and my mum is white English. My dad recently found out that his great great grandfather was the son of an indentured servant from Scotland as white as they come who got with a black woman. And his father was white Scottish and his father was white Scottish bla bla bla as far as he could research back. Only the last four were black on his father's side. He would never have known that if he hadn't have done research. You would have just looked at his colour and assumed his line was African all the way through... does his brother who still lives in the Caribbean and never been to Scotland have more ties now to Scotland than someone who was born there and lived there their whole lives. Sounds ludicrous to me.

Does that go for third generation immigrants too? What if she and her Indian born husband have children, will they be British in your eyes? I think you'll find she is a British citizen, her ethnicity is irrelevant. In the same way that she isn't an immigrant, the same could be said for some of those people in the first picture in the OP. To assume they are immigrants because they are not white is a ridiculous assumption. Exactly the sort of thing you'd expect in a tabloid though, and exactly the sort of opinion you'd get with tabloid readers. I'm curious as to what lengths a person would have to be to be thought of as British.