Turn on thread page Beta

The Wonderful Benefits of Diversity watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Third World Immigration: Importing Poverty, not Prosperity

    By Arthur Kemp

    Third World Immigration into the UK imports poverty, boosts social delinquency and crime, and costs British taxpayers a fortune - precisely the opposite of what liberals allege are the benefits of such open door immigration policies.

    For decades, Whites in Britain have been told repeatedly that Third World Immigration is beneficial and will help to boost the economy, protect old people's pensions (through the immigrants being economically active and 'sharing the future tax burden'); and bring a host of other alleged blessings.

    The Commission for Racial Equality, for example, in its flagship publication 'Roots of the Future - Ethnic Diversity in the Making of Britain' says:

    "Far from impoverishing the country, immigrants have brought fresh ideas, new skills, labour, capital, resourcefulness and a diversity of cultures that make all our lives richer and varied. The aim of this book is to highlight the contribution made by Britain's ethnic minorities to its social and economic development". (1)

    A review of the ethnic minorities "contribution to social and economic development" is therefore well in order.

    The London Case Study

    London is the ideal place to study the economic and social impact of Third World immigration into Britain. Not only does the capital contain more than half of the total number of the UK's ethnic minorities, but demographic studies have shown, that, given current immigration and natural reproduction rates, Whites will be a minority in London by 2010. (2)

    Social and economic indicators from London, therefore, provide a valuable insight into the 'contribution' of Third World immigrants to Britain's well-being, and these can then be posited against the liberal suggestion that immigrants bring 'prosperity' to Britain.

    Poverty, Not Prosperity, Marks Third Worlders in London

    According to the Association of London Government (ALG), the capital has two-thirds of the most deprived local authority housing estates and three of the five most deprived boroughs in England.(3)

    Bearing in mind that London will be a majority non-White city in just eight years time, the racial implications of the ALG finding are obvious.

    According to the Community Foundation, in its information pack 'About London', poverty in London is getting worse with growing numbers now receiving Income Support and with a growing polarisation of incomes since the 1980s. (4)

    This poverty has a clear and obvious racial distinction to it, with the Community Foundation pointing out that one in three black and minority ethnic households is on a low income, compared with only one in six white households. (5)

    London has the highest rate of child poverty of any region in the UK. (6) In the capital, 44 percent of children live in households where income, after housing costs, is half the national average, compared with 25 percent in the South East and 34 percent in the UK. (7)

    Between 1998 and 2000, the rate of child poverty in London remained the same. Over the same period, it fell by 7 percent in the North East and 5 percent in the North West. (8)

    Unemployment in inner London is almost twice the national average - 7.1 percent compared with 3.6 percent in the UK (9)

    In addition, some 42.1 percent of children in Inner London are eligible for free school meals. This compares with an average of 15.8 percent of children nationally. (10)

    In December 2001, 10 of the 25 Parliamentary constituencies with the highest unemployment rates in the UK were in London (11)

    London is, says the Association of London Government, home to more unemployed people than any other region in the UK and more than the combined total of Scotland and Wales. (12)

    'More Than Half' of Children in Inner London 'Below Poverty Line'
    According to a report released by the office of the mayor of London in November 2002, more than half the 600,000 children living in inner London are being brought up below the government's official poverty line. (13)

    According to this report, 30 percent of inner London's 1.8 million working age adults are already below the poverty line. (14)

    'Poverty' in London is Majority Third World in Origin

    The mayor of London's own report on poverty in the capital points out that poverty is highest among ethnic minority groups, with 73 percent of Pakistani and Bangladeshi children in inner London and 55 percent of black children living in poverty after housing costs. (15)

    The statistics speak for themselves. Instead of contributing an 'economically active' component to the British economy, Third World immigration has in fact massively exacerbated poverty in London.

    Crime and London

    With London set to become a majority non-White city within the next eight years, it is sobering to learn that the capital has 25 percent of England's problem drug users. There are an estimated 56,000 drug dependent adults in London. (16)

    The Metropolitan Police estimates that 30 percent or more of crimes such as burglary, shoplifting, fraud and theft are committed by drug users in London. (17)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There were 994,233 crimes reported in London in 2001/01 - of these 155,276 were violent offences and 8,759 sexual offences. (18)

    One in four of all sexual offences reported to the police in England and Wales in the year 2000/01, were committed in London. (19)

    In the capital there are 158 detentions per 100,000 population compared to the next highest rate which is in the North West, with 99 per 100,000 population, and the national rate of 91 per 100,000 population. (20)

    DoH figures for 2000/01, which set out formal admissions to NHS and private facilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 by Regional Office Area, show that London has the highest rate of mental health detentions in NHS hospitals. (21)

    Third World Immigration and Social Delinquency

    Research carried out at Cambridge University has proven a close link between poverty and truancy among primary school children. The study, carried out at Magdalene College and School of Education, examined statistics on truancy from London boroughs between 1997 and 2000. (22)
    This research is significant when the Third World immigrant population of London's schools is evaluated:

    According to the Association of London Government, English is an additional language for 43 percent of school-age children in inner London. (23) In addition, London's schoolchildren speak over 300 languages. (24)

    It is therefore clear that a significant proportion of London's school-going age children are of Third World extraction. When combined with the poverty factor endemic amongst this population sector, the question has to be asked: Does Third World immigration lead to academic excellence, and the building of a future population which is 'going to contribute to the economy', as the multi-culturalist liberals would have White Britons believe?

    The sad truth is that "(T)housands of children in London do not go to school, either truanting or 'excluded' for misconduct," according to Moira Rayner, Director of the Office of Children's Rights, Commissioner for London. (25)

    Furthermore, she links truancy and misconduct directly to race: "These exclusions are linked to parental poverty, ethnic minority status and poor reading skills," says Ms. Rayner. (26)

    And what does this lead to? Ms. Rayner provides the answer: "In London, five percent all offences are committed by children during school hours: 40 percent of robberies, 25 percent of burglaries, 20 percent of thefts and 20 percent of criminal damage in 1997 were committed by 10 to 16 year olds." (27)

    Other issues evident in London include:
    - Inner London has double the national average of children from lone parent families. (28) - Four of the five local authority areas with the highest rates of teenage pregnancy are in London. (29)
    - The number of children looked after by social services in inner London is double the national average. (30)

    The Financial Cost of Third World Immigration to London

    The amount British taxpayers have to fork out for this series of economic and social disasters in London is staggering: in the 2000/2001 financial year, the capital spent a total of £2.1 billion on social services. (31)

    According to the Government Office for London, by 2004, the most deprived boroughs in London will all receive an additional £34.5 million in funding, over and above 'normal' outlay. (32)

    In addition, London has around 52,000 homeless households - the equivalent of the population of a town the size of Guildford - in temporary accommodation. 8,000 are in bed and breakfast or hostel accommodation. The net cost of homelessness to London after subsidy is more than £100 million a year. (33)

    Conclusion: Third World Immigration Has Brought Poverty, Not Prosperity

    The evidence is clear: the multi-culturalists are lying when they say that Third World immigration has and will benefit Britain economically and socially.

    The truth, solidly documented above, shows the exact opposite: namely:

    London, which has borne the brunt of Third World immigration into the UK, has some of the most severe poverty issues in the UK;

    London, which has borne the brunt of Third World immigration into the UK, has pro-rata, the highest unemployment rate in the UK;

    London, which has borne the brunt of Third World immigration into the UK, has and continues to cost the British taxpayer a massive amount in terms of social support services;

    The inescapable conclusion is that Third World immigration does not bring prosperity, but in fact imports large-scale poverty.

    Only a halting, and reversal, of the immigration policies of the past few decades can prevent this problem from threatening the very existence of Britain as a first World nation.




    References

    (1) Commission for Racial Equality, 'Roots of the Future', London, March 1997
    (2) The Observer 'UK whites will be minority by 2100' September 3, 2000, http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/st...363750,00.html
    (3) Association of London Government (ALG) - 'Fair funding needed to help deliver Government's vision of providing quality services for all' 1/10/2002 ; http://www.alg.gov.uk/doc.asp?docId=7725
    (4) Community Foundation, 'About London' http://www.londoncf.org/aboutLondon.html
    (5) ibid.
    (6) Association of London Government, 'Key Facts' booklet, http://www.alg.gov.uk/attachments/20...%202002-03.pdf
    (7 -11) ibid.
    (12) Association of London Government (ALG) - 'Fair funding needed to help deliver Government's vision of providing quality services for all' 1/10/ 2002 ; http://www.alg.gov.uk/doc.asp?docId=7725
    (13) The Guardian, '53% of inner London children 'live in poverty', November 19, 2002, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...843007,00.html
    (14 - 15) ibid.
    (16 -19) Association of London Government, 'Key Facts' booklet, http://www.alg.gov.uk/attachments/20...%202002-03.pdf
    (20) Association of London Government (ALG) - 'Fair funding needed to help deliver Government's vision of providing quality services for all' 1/10/ 2002 ; http://www.alg.gov.uk/doc.asp?docId=7725
    (21) ibid
    (22) BBC, 'Link between poverty and truancy' 7 July, 2002, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2094292.stm
    (23) Association of London Government, 'Key Facts' booklet, http://www.alg.gov.uk/attachments/20...%202002-03.pdf
    (24) Community Foundation, 'About London' http://www.londoncf.org/aboutLondon.html
    (25) Moira Rayner, Director of the Office of Children's Rights, Commissioner for London, 'The State of Children's Rights in the UK', http://www.dci-au.org/html/rightsuk.html
    (26 - 27 ) ibid.
    (28- 30) Community Foundation, 'About London' http://www.londoncf.org/aboutLondon.html
    (31) Association of London Government (ALG) - 'Fair funding needed to help deliver Government's vision of providing quality services for all' 1/10/ 2002 ; http://www.alg.gov.uk/doc.asp?docId=7725
    (32) Government Office for London, Children's Fund,
    http://www.go-london.gov.uk/educatio..._in_london.asp
    (33) Association of London Government (ALG) - 'Fair funding needed to help deliver Government's vision of providing quality services for all' 1/10/ 2002 ; http://www.alg.gov.uk/doc.asp?docId=7725
    -
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    think for yourself it might do you some good :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Britian has always had imigrants so why should tell destroy the country now and not in the past? You might be interested to know that ODEAN was set up by an immigrant and Marks & Specers was co-owned by an immigrant.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    France has actually over taken Britain in the amount of immigrants it takes in and as for the article i disagree and frankly statistics can be so easily manipulated that I remain sceptical
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gnostic XXX)
    Letting in wogs destroys our civilisation and economy. Hardly a great revelation, now is it?
    I didn't know Britain imported large numbers of novelty dolls...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think that the conclusions you draw from those statistics are blatently racist, and here's why I think that.

    What is your solution? A reversal of the immigration policy suggests you send people back, to where they will be even poorer in less economically developed nations (interestingly your statistics do not say where the immigrants come from, but I'm assuming you mean immigrants from poorer nations than our own. However, I'm sure in London there are a lot of American, Japanise, European immigrants as well).

    Most inner cities have problems with relative poverty (as opposed to absolute poverty which many of the very poorest nations in the world suffer from). Liverpool for example, is desperatly poor. But then, I suppose you're going to blame that on the Irish?

    I am also concerned with your own concern for white people becoming a minority in London. As far as I am concerned, people are people. We all feel the same emotions and are just as bloody awkward to get on with. The fact that you like there to be more white people suggests to me a number of things. Primarily, you are a racist and do not like people with different coloured skins for that simple reason. Secondly, it suggests that you are afraid of coloured people, you need to feel that your group, your white people (NB: I'm white, but I wouldn't put myself min the same group as you) are in control. This suggests fear and ignorance.

    Also you seem to ignore why the government suggests that immigration is a good thing economically. We have an ageing population. If you think of a population pyramid (I'm too lazy to draw one now) the British populaion is top heavy, with more older people than younger, working age people. this means that over the next generations we are likely to fall into a state where the taxes gained from working people, and the profitability of the stock market (where private pensions are financed from) will not be great enough to support the aging, population (or children). There are several solutions to this: make people work harder (when we already work harder than in many MEDC nations), raise taxes (not popular), export old people (I don't think either too many of the older generations or the other nations would be best pleased about having a sudden influx of elderly people to care for), or import new workers.

    So here's another solution to poverty. Why don't we just invest more in poor communities? Make sure that poverty in Britain becomes a thing of the past. And plesase remember that money is not the only resource that can be ploughed into a community to help it, though money does help. And another interesting idea, why not help the poor natons in the world, buy more fair trade goods, and that way people will feel less of an economic need to migrate, though I hope that our society becomes more diverse because the more branches of community, the more differing traditions, the more cultural diversity we have, means we have more ideas, more ways of looking at things, more ways of developing as a human race.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The answer to England's social and economic problems? Blame it on the darkies! Why didn't I think of that? :rolleyes:

    Nice post, Minor_Deity, I don't have much to add to it. All I will say is that it is immigration and cultural diversity that have made this country the interesting place it is. The NHS would collapse overnight without migrant doctors, nurses and workers to sustain it. The national dish is curry. The English language itself is a *******ised mixture of Latin, French, Anglo-Saxon and various other bits and pieces poached from other languages. Thats what makes it such a diverse and rich language.

    You look at studies that are exclusive to London and then apply the results to the entire country, clearly a logical error. Immigration needs to be monitored, certainly, but stopped and reversed? Thats the principal policy of the BNP. While I do not suggest you are a member, it would do you good to think before openly endorsing the policies of a bigoted, extremist party.

    A decent amount of immigration is the sign of a healthy, respectable country. England is still over 90% white, and so I don't really see white people being made a minority anytime soon. I wouldn't particularly care if that did happen, English does not equal white.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Minor_Deity)
    Most inner cities have problems with relative poverty (as opposed to absolute poverty which many of the very poorest nations in the world suffer from). Liverpool for example, is desperatly poor. But then, I suppose you're going to blame that on the Irish?
    Liverpool is not desperatly poor! Where did you get that assumption?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I resent the accusation that disagreeing with immigration is 'racist'. That word appears to have lost its meaning in recent years due to the rise in so called political correctness. Something I like to refer to as complete crap.
    The fact of the matter is that the immigrants come over here, and expect to maintain exactly the same culture as in their country of origin. A liberty that is not extended to westerners wishing to travel to the middle east and other islamic nations for example. For instance it is illegal to drink, or even to posses alcohol in saudi arabia. Women have to cover up and conform to other repressive cultural laws and customs in such places. Yet we allow them to come over here, and build great big mosques in our cities, and wander around in gangs, or preaching about the evils of the western world, and how they should rise up against us. Abu hamza doesn't appear to complain about all of the benefits he recives for delivering his sermons, far more incitefull of racial hatred than anything the BNP have ever come out with, instead of finding a job and actually contributing to society.
    As such immigration at its current rate is unsustainible, and will lead to further unrest and resenfulness of the indiginous population of this country, unless immigration is halted, and the immigrants currently here are forced to integrate into our culture, rather than attempting to maintain an outpost of india or syria or wherever in the middle of Birmingham.
    They have got bloody embassies in London for that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Minor_Deity)
    I think that the conclusions you draw from those statistics are blatently racist, and here's why I think that.

    What is your solution? A reversal of the immigration policy suggests you send people back, to where they will be even poorer in less economically developed nations

    What's your point? I don't CARE if they will be poorer and in a less economically developed nation. It is NOT my responsibility! The only thing the UK government needs to worry about is the best interests of the UK PEOPLE. We should NOT have to suffer these immigrants, for the sake of them not being sent back "to where they will be even poorer in less economically developed nations ". What we need is an immigration politcy that is not about THEIR benefit, it's about OUT benefit.



    (Original post by Minor_Deity)
    I am also concerned with your own concern for white people becoming a minority in London. As far as I am concerned, people are people. We all feel the same emotions and are just as bloody awkward to get on with. The fact that you like there to be more white people suggests to me a number of things. Primarily, you are a racist and do not like people with different coloured skins for that simple reason.
    You are an IDIOT. I'm surprised someone as stupid as you knows how to breathe. This is a WHITE COUNTRY you worthless piece of garbage, it's not racist to only want white people (specifically anglos, irish, welsh and scots) here. What I find interesting is how idiots like you would NEVER say the same thing about white people in a non-white country. Asian and black countries have far more stringent immigration policies than we do, in China for instance only a certain amount of white people are allowed in, and in some African countries white people are not allowed to immigrate... but I don't see you whining about THAT. For some reason, idiot leftists like yourself ONLY want immigration into white countries and you ONLY want white ethnic homelands to be multicultural. Why aren't you trying to get more white immigration into Africa? (And let me ask you a question IDIOT... would pakistan, or any asian, middle eastern or african country ever allow so much white immigration that their own people became a minority in one of their cities? Would THEY ever have the mindset of "people are people and it doesn't matter if we're a minority in our own land"?)

    And not to mention, MOST non-white immigrants in the UK are racist against whites and everyone else that isn't their specific ethnicity. Indians and pakkis love to date white women, but forbid their daughters and sisters from dating white (or any other non-indian or non-pakki) men. Pakis openly talk about taking over London, and are not interested in muliculturalism; they have VERY strong racial identity and only care about the best interests of pakii people. Most other non-white immigrants are the same as well: they are ethnocentric, jingoistic, and bigoted. Whites walking into a paki, black or indian neighborhood will get assaulted and beat up. And we all know the problems between blacks and pakis. Non-white immigrants are INTOLERANT. They probably wouldn't have any problem with committing ethnic cleansing against whites (which is probably the true goal of leftists), in their very own country.

    Leftists like YOU see no problem with any of that, but you DO have a problem with whites that dislike non-white immigrants behaving such a way in their own country. YOU have no problem with the ethnocentrism or pakis having a strong racial identity and an "us versus them" attitude, but you think I'M a racist because I "like there to be more white people"?


    (Original post by Minor_Deity)
    though I hope that our society becomes more diverse because the more branches of community, the more differing traditions, the more cultural diversity we have
    Where is the cultural diversity in India, Pakistan, or Africa? In Paki-Land there are only pakis, only Indians in India, and only blacks in Africa. Why do leftist idiots such as yourself only want cultural diversity in the ethnic homeland of whites?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Leachboy)
    The answer to England's social and economic problems? Blame it on the darkies! Why didn't I think of that? :rolleyes: N

    ice post, Minor_Deity, I don't have much to add to it. All I will say is that it is immigration and cultural diversity that have made this country the interesting place it is.
    Where's the cultural diversity in the darkies' own countries? I only see white countries becoming diverse while africa stays black, pakistan stays paki, and india stays indian.




    (Original post by Leachboy)
    You look at studies that are exclusive to London and then apply the results to the entire country, clearly a logical error. Immigration needs to be monitored, certainly, but stopped and reversed? Thats the principal policy of the BNP. While I do not suggest you are a member, it would do you good to think before openly endorsing the policies of a bigoted, extremist party.
    I am not a member of the BNP, but I do support it. And the reason I support it is because of idiots like yourself. Funny you should call the BNP a "bigoted, extremist party" when Britain's leftist parties are even more bigoted and extremist... against whites.


    (Original post by Leachboy)
    A decent amount of immigration is the sign of a healthy, respectable country. England is still over 90% white, and so I don't really see white people being made a minority anytime soon. I wouldn't particularly care if that did happen, English does not equal white.
    And WHY then, does India equal dothead, and pakistan equal paki?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by janon)
    I resent the accusation that disagreeing with immigration is 'racist'. That word appears to have lost its meaning in recent years due to the rise in so called political correctness. Something I like to refer to as complete crap.
    The fact of the matter is that the immigrants come over here, and expect to maintain exactly the same culture as in their country of origin. A liberty that is not extended to westerners wishing to travel to the middle east and other islamic nations for example. For instance it is illegal to drink, or even to posses alcohol in saudi arabia. Women have to cover up and conform to other repressive cultural laws and customs in such places. Yet we allow them to come over here, and build great big mosques in our cities, and wander around in gangs, or preaching about the evils of the western world, and how they should rise up against us. Abu hamza doesn't appear to complain about all of the benefits he recives for delivering his sermons, far more incitefull of racial hatred than anything the BNP have ever come out with, instead of finding a job and actually contributing to society.
    As such immigration at its current rate is unsustainible, and will lead to further unrest and resenfulness of the indiginous population of this country, unless immigration is halted, and the immigrants currently here are forced to integrate into our culture, rather than attempting to maintain an outpost of india or syria or wherever in the middle of Birmingham.
    They have got bloody embassies in London for that.

    Good point. There is a huge double standard going on here with non-whites, and the sniveling leftists/labourites that worship them. You talk about going to Saudi Arabia and keeping your culture there... but an even more interesting question is, would a non-white country even ALLOW whites to immigrate in the same numbers that Britain allows non-whites in? Would the capital city of Saudi Arabia, for instance, allow in so many westerner immigrants that Saudis became a minority in their own city?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Mr Kemp is very clever. He has lead the reader to assume that the majority of non-whites in London are immigrants, possibly not true, I don't know he provides no figures to support that tacit assumption. He also uses statistics which highlight urban social problems (experienced to some extent in most cities in the western world), such as unemployment, poverty, social disorder and then informs the reader that London is a majority non-white city, leading the reader to assume that these problems are associated with immigration, when none of the studies he cites study solely immigrant populations. A lot of his statistics are not even ethnicly divided.

    Be very careful, there are many non-whites (I use this term relucantly and only because it is in Mr Kemps article) who are 2, 3, 4 even 5th generation resident in Britain (i.e. Children of at least one British parent). These people are UK citizens and residents and as such have the rights and priveleges associated with such status.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by janon)
    The fact of the matter is that the immigrants come over here, and expect to maintain exactly the same culture as in their country of origin. A liberty that is not extended to westerners wishing to travel to the middle east and other islamic nations for example.
    You are comparing a liberal democracy with repressive and often fundamental regimes - apples and oranges. Also, why should laws in middle eastern oppresive regimes shape our legal system and how we allow people to express themselves?

    For instance it is illegal to drink, or even to posses alcohol in saudi arabia. Women have to cover up and conform to other repressive cultural laws and customs in such places. Yet we allow them to come over here, and build great big mosques in our cities, and wander around in gangs, or preaching about the evils of the western world, and how they should rise up against us.
    People have the right in this country to practice their religion. White people wander around in gangs too, so what? Most muslims are not terrorists and do not sympathise with al-qaeda, those that do (like abu hamza) are investigated and arrested if they break the laws of this country.

    Abu hamza doesn't appear to complain about all of the benefits he recives for delivering his sermons, far more incitefull of racial hatred than anything the BNP have ever come out with, instead of finding a job and actually contributing to society.
    Abu Hamza is a muslim cleric, an Imam, it is a job just like a priest of any other religion. I disagree about the BNP not being as racist though.

    As such immigration at its current rate is unsustainible, and will lead to further unrest and resenfulness of the indiginous population of this country, unless immigration is halted, and the immigrants currently here are forced to integrate into our culture, rather than attempting to maintain an outpost of india or syria or wherever in the middle of Birmingham.
    They have got bloody embassies in London for that.
    And your evidence for this is what? Where are the studies that support your conclusions?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Mr Kemp is very clever. He has lead the reader to assume that the majority of non-whites in London are immigrants, possibly not true, I don't know he provides no figures to support that tacit assumption. He also uses statistics which highlight urban social problems (experienced to some extent in most cities in the western world), such as unemployment, poverty, social disorder and then informs the reader that London is a majority non-white city, leading the reader to assume that these problems are associated with immigration, when none of the studies he cites study solely immigrant populations. A lot of his statistics are not even ethnicly divided.

    Be very careful, there are many non-whites (I use this term relucantly and only because it is in Mr Kemps article) who are 2, 3, 4 even 5th generation resident in Britain (i.e. Children of at least one British parent). These people are UK citizens and residents and as such have the rights and priveleges associated with such status.

    They shouldn't be counted as citizens IMO. I have umbrage with the fact that anyone born here gains citizenship. Any person that is born of an immigrant should be an immigrant as well. You should only have citizenship at birth if both your parents are citizens, and you're ethnically Irish, Scottish, Welsh, and maybe Anglo.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shannonjacobs)
    Where's the cultural diversity in the darkies' own countries? I only see white countries becoming diverse while africa stays black, pakistan stays paki, and india stays indian.
    Again, why does the nature of these nations affect the way we run our society, are you suggesting we be more like these countries?


    I am not a member of the BNP, but I do support it. And the reason I support it is because of idiots like yourself. Funny you should call the BNP a "bigoted, extremist party" when Britain's leftist parties are even more bigoted and extremist... against whites.
    Okay then, give me a list of left-wing parties and references to their anti-white policies.


    And WHY then, does India equal dothead, and pakistan equal paki?
    By 'dothead' I presume you mean Hindu, well you are wrong there, there are many other religions in India apart for Hinduism, including Christianity. There is also a large British immigrant population. 'Paki' is just a derogatory abbreviation of Pakistani, so technically you are right on that one, albeit a racist slur. Do you actually know what our nation did to these countries? India and Pakistan have only been independant of Britain for about 50 years.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shannonjacobs)
    They shouldn't be counted as citizens IMO. I have umbrage with the fact that anyone born here gains citizenship. Any person that is born of an immigrant should be an immigrant as well. You should only have citizenship at birth if both your parents are citizens, and you're ethnically Irish, Scottish, Welsh, and maybe Anglo.
    People born in this country of non-British parents do not gain automatic citizenship, what gave you that idea? You idea for citizenship is totaly racist, and unworkable as the ethnicities you have citied are very, very loosely defined anyway.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Again, why does the nature of these nations affect the way we run our society,
    Because it DOESN'T work if it's only one way. "What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too" is not a philosophy to operate a government, society, or immigration policy on. We go without so that we can share with them, but they don't share with us. We get deprived, and they get extra.


    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    are you suggesting we be more like these countries?
    YES. At least as far as their immigration policies go... as far as everything else (ie, being a radical muslim state, or a place like pakistan where the pakis rule and all foreigners such as whites are second class citizens), that's already starting to happen. Britain and Europe as a whole is being taken over by muslims and non-whites.


    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Okay then, give me a list of left-wing parties and references to their anti-white policies.
    The current ruling political party, and for proof you have to look no farther than their immigration policy.



    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    By 'dothead' I presume you mean Hindu, well you are wrong there, there are many other religions in India apart for Hinduism, including Christianity.
    Where's the ethnic diversity? Not enough whites, blacks, hispanics, east asians, arabs and other non-indians there imo. India should be 10% white, 10% black, 10% mexican, 20% east asian, 20% semitic/arab/middle eastern, and 30% indian. That would truly be multicultural.



    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    'Paki' is just a derogatory abbreviation of Pakistani, so technically you are right on that one, albeit a racist slur.
    I'll remember that next time someone calls me a brit.


    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Do you actually know what our nation did to these countries? India and Pakistan have only been independant of Britain for about 50 years.
    I don't care what happened to them.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shannonjacobs)
    Because it DOESN'T work if it's only one way. "What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too" is not a philosophy to operate a government, society, or immigration policy on. We go without so that we can share with them, but they don't share with us. We get deprived, and they get extra.
    Do you think that the relative economies might have something to do with the relative immigration rates? There are plenty of british people living in India you know.

    YES. At least as far as their immigration policies go... as far as everything else (ie, being a radical muslim state, or a place like pakistan where the pakis rule and all foreigners such as whites are second class citizens), that's already starting to happen. Britain and Europe as a whole is being taken over by muslims and non-whites.
    We are not in a radical state, why should we behave like one? Europe is not being taken over by muslims and non-whites, they are very much in the minority.

    The current ruling political party, and for proof you have to look no farther than their immigration policy.
    Which is very similar to the previous conservative governments immigration policy. White immigrants aren't disadavantaged by this policy are they?

    Where's the ethnic diversity? Not enough whites, blacks, hispanics, east asians, arabs and other non-indians there imo. India should be 10% white, 10% black, 10% mexican, 20% east asian, 20% semitic/arab/middle eastern, and 30% indian. That would truly be multicultural.
    You want ethnic diversity in india but not in britain?

    I'll remember that next time someone calls me a brit.
    As far as I am aware the abbreviation 'brit' is not a derogatory term.


    I don't care what happened to them.
    It happened to us too, it was the British Empire.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.