The Student Room Group

Immigration.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by A Mysterious Lord
The argument hasn't been about race for at least 30 years.


Sure it has, just nobody has been able to say it is.
Original post by Native To Europe
Good for you


Indeed, good for me. I am not a racist.
Original post by william walker
Look at what happened to the Australians, Rhodesians and South Africans when they attempted to have a policy of white immigration. It wasn't political sustainable. However having a policy based upon prior legacy would be political sustainable, however the outcome of such a policy would be basically the same as a policy that favours white people. You must find ways of maneuvering politically.


Australia, Rhodesia and South Africa were all colonised. The UK is being colonised now: how is it not politically sustainable to resist this?
Original post by anosmianAcrimony
Basing immigration rules on legacy and ancestry seems arbitrary to me. What gives someone whose grandpa was British more of a right to be a part of our society than someone whose grandpa wasn't?

I say this with no idea of how I would set up rules to determine who could immigrate into a country. I can just recognise a non sequitur​ when I see one.


Because legacy matters. You may not what it to matter, but it does. What your ancestors were matters. Everybody knows it matters, but nobody ever wants to base a policy on it. That is until I come along and because I am better than everybody else on here I thought of it.

We aren't in a society, we are in the British nation state. This fact is telling that you say society which is a meaningless term for any group of people in a subjectively defined geographical area. Indeed the non sequitur comes from your own poor use of language.
Original post by HigherMinion
Australia, Rhodesia and South Africa were all colonised. The UK is being colonised now: how is it not politically sustainable to resist this?


Because very few people would vote for such a policy, it would overtly discriminate against non-white people. As you have seen in this thread, people don't want to be seen as racist, despite their being so.

I fully agree with you about the UK being colonised by immigrant legacies.
Original post by william walker
No I am not shifting anything. I said I didn't have any evidence to support my claim. Then asked you if you has evidence to support your claim. I made a claim and you made a counter claim. We both made a claim.

No people resent the EU because they have no sovereignty over immigration policy, it has nothing to do with immigration. It has everything to do with the sovereignty of the British nation state.


I doubt UK voters are this principled, funnily enough. some are, sure, but most - I doubt it strongly.
Original post by william walker
What your ancestors were matters.


I have never understood why. I think we are in agreement that the culture in which a person was brought up matters, but a person's lineage is not a perfect predictor of that. Please explain why a person's ancestors matter.

Once again, you really seem like you're from the 1660s or something. Most of society has long since realised that a person's ancestry has no effect on the content of their character.
Original post by anosmianAcrimony
I have never understood why. I think we are in agreement that the culture in which a person was brought up matters, but a person's lineage is not a perfect predictor of that. Please explain why a person's ancestors matter.

Once again, you really seem like you're from the 1660s or something. Most of society has long since realised that a person's ancestry has no effect on the content of their character.


What is culture? It is the legacy of your ancestors. That is why legacy and ancestors matter. It isn't always the dominant factor, but in each case it matters. Which is why a British person who's parents were both Irish becomes a member of the IRA. Or a British person who's parents were both Pakistani joins ISIL. Yet a person who's parents were Presbyterian doesn't join ISIL or IRA.

I simply understand what happened from the 1660 to form the British nation state and what difference it made. Most progressive plonkers you get on here and in general don't care about history. These people are wrong because of it. Considering the policy of multi-culturalism is all about people being able to keep their immigrant legacy of their ancestors in Britain, you are wrong it is clearer than ever that ancestry has an effect.
An all white immigration policy would be political suicide and may even cause riots in the streets from ethnic minorities.

If that is what a government did want, they would have to word it very carefully and manipulatively.
Original post by JulianRothschild
Why is it so hard for you to understand that your perceived observation of Europe in general is misguided. Yes we feel closer to our own people and yes I feel safer in Europe than I would in China or Africa, because they are inherently the same as me. Your basing national character, temperament on media, have you ever been to Greece? Poland? Montenegro? Albania? Croatia?


Don't be silly. He made no mention of Chinese or African immigration; we certainly feel no affiliation with the Chinese or Africans, but maybe those in Hong Kong who were placed there by the British; maybe those South Africans with British heritage (who are, incidentally, being murdered due to a perceived race war).So what about all the British Americans and Aussies? That is the crux of his point: we have more in common with them than other European nations.

Cultures of those countries have changed somewhat, but there is a reason we refer to "The West" as the English speaking world: we are largely the same.
Original post by poohat
Its not 'opinion' that many/most British people are uncomfortable about mass Eastern European immigration, and I dont see how you could think otherwise. There has been a substantial backlash against Poles and Romanians over the last few years, in a way that would never exist for (eg) American/Australian (or even German/French) immigration, since these people are usually seen as being much closer to Brits than Romanians are.

Yes, people might feel they have more in common with the average Pole than with the average African or Pakistani but that doesnt mean they want mass immigration of Poles into the country. "If I had to choose, then I would prefer X over Y" does not mean "I want X"


While you last point is true, i have to agree with Native in that most people object to Polish immigration on economic grounds (housing, transport, jobs) rather than any real cultural issues. Contrast this with Islamaphobia against those from the likes of Pakistan which is most definitely based on a cultural clash.

Most people certainly feel closest to an Australian's, Kiwi and then North American but despite European history i do think people are starting to blanket Europeans as one and i do think that objections to European immigration are largely based on economic grounds with a possible language aspect.
You're all racist, separatist, divisive, narrow minded, condescending, sectarian zombies.

People just want to have a nice life. You, immigrants, whoever...
Original post by william walker
What is culture? It is the legacy of your ancestors. That is why legacy and ancestors matter. It isn't always the dominant factor, but in each case it matters. Which is why a British person who's parents were both Irish becomes a member of the IRA. Or a British person who's parents were both Pakistani joins ISIL. Yet a person who's parents were Presbyterian doesn't join ISIL or IRA.

I simply understand what happened from the 1660 to form the British nation state and what difference it made. Most progressive plonkers you get on here and in general don't care about history. These people are wrong because of it. Considering the policy of multi-culturalism is all about people being able to keep their immigrant legacy of their ancestors in Britain, you are wrong it is clearer than ever that ancestry has an effect.


the IRA does not equal cathlocism. The founding fathers of Irish republicanism were protestant such as wolfe tone. Your statement is flawed
Original post by Native To Europe
the IRA does not equal cathlocism. The founding fathers of Irish republicanism were protestant such as wolfe tone. Your statement is flawed


I never said anything about Catholics. I said Irish parents. Also the issue in Ireland is between the Ulster-Scots, Anglo-Irish and native Irish. It is nothing to do with Protestantism vs Catholicism. Rather the Ulster-Scots, most of which are non-conformist Protestants, against the Anglo-Irish who are mainly Anglican conformists and the native Irish who are mainly Catholic. What 1801 act of Union did was bring the Anglo-Irish into the British state with the Parliamentary Union and the establishment of the Church of Ireland. This politically made it impossible for Irish nationalism to happen, until the Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1877 at which point the Anglo-Irish Anglicans moved to protect their interests and supported Irish nationalism, not Irish Republicanism.
Original post by william walker
I never said anything about Catholics. I said Irish parents. Also the issue in Ireland is between the Ulster-Scots, Anglo-Irish and native Irish. It is nothing to do with Protestantism vs Catholicism. Rather the Ulster-Scots, most of which are non-conformist Protestants, against the Anglo-Irish who are mainly Anglican conformists and the native Irish who are mainly Catholic. What 1801 act of Union did was bring the Anglo-Irish into the British state with the Parliamentary Union and the establishment of the Church of Ireland. This politically made it impossible for Irish nationalism to happen, until the Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1877 at which point the Anglo-Irish Anglicans moved to protect their interests and supported Irish nationalism, not Irish Republicanism.


i agree with everything you say; I insinuated incorrectly
Original post by democracyforum
An all white immigration policy would be political suicide and may even cause riots in the streets from ethnic minorities.

If that is what a government did want, they would have to word it very carefully and manipulatively.


Those riots if the happened would be put down. However you could have a family loophole, so most the ethnic minorities wouldn't care as their families could still join them if they wanted. Also by trying to cut emigration number you are also making it harder for ethnic minorities to leave or be forced to leave the British nation state, meaning they have great protect of their place in Britain.

Yes the government would have to word it carefully to manipulate people in correct way.
Original post by saayagain
You're all racist, separatist, divisive, narrow minded, condescending, sectarian zombies.

People just want to have a nice life. You, immigrants, whoever...


Yes and I want to protect the legacy of my ancestors who created the British nation state. Also I want as many people as possible to become British subjects and share that legacy, even if their ancestors weren't from Britain.
Original post by william walker
Yes and I want to protect the legacy of my ancestors who created the British nation state. Also I want as many people as possible to become British subjects and share that legacy, even if their ancestors weren't from Britain.


What? British subjects? lol

You're lost.
Original post by saayagain
What? British subjects? lol

You're lost.


What?
Original post by william walker
What?


You're lost. You belong in the 19 hundreds.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you