Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't care what happened to them.[/QUOTE]


    i'm curious, have u had an extremely bad personal experience with non-white ppl? dont blind me with statisitcs here, just an honest answer will do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shannonjacobs)
    Would the capital city of Saudi Arabia, for instance, allow in so many westerner immigrants that Saudis became a minority in their own city?
    Riyadh

    Saudis do not employ their own people as servants, they employ migrant workers.

    Many British / American / European people do work in Saudi. I havn't got the numbers but I wouldn't be suprised if soudis were in the minority. And as for not being allowed to drink - well they knew that before they went there and the tax free sallary makes up for that and you don't actually HAVE to drink in britain.

    BTW has anybody seen the hoops you have to jump through for british immigration? Or even just to work here on a contract?

    Do you know what an 'honourary registrar' is? OK it's a post for hospital doctors from abroad, registrar is one level down from being a consultant. They spend 2 years working for the NHS and the NHS pays them £0.00. I knew a couple of doctors on this scheme and one asked to stay in Britain for 2 months at the end of her contract, because her husband's contract hadn't finished. She was denied leave to stay and basically kicked out of the country.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I AM NOT ANTI WHITE! I AM PRO PEOPLE!

    *calms down a little*

    Okay, I see this is going to be tough, near impossible, to change your views, but let's have ago anyway. Firstly I'd like to say I support the arguments of Leachboy and ChemistBoy. Also I'd like to apologise to frost105, I was generalising about Liverpool. But it does have some very poor areas in it, and is suffering from large out-migration. This is one of the reasons it has been granted 'Capital of Culture' status that comes in the next few years.

    As for 'Paki' being a slur and 'Brit' not being, this has far more to do with connertations rather than abbrieviating. Paki was used as an insult for many years and so graduly people wanting to distance themselves from racist and xenephobic views stopped using the word (which I believe was once acceptable) and using the full word 'Pakistani'. Today it is genrally only racists and xenephobes who use the word. Conversly, 'Brit' was never used as an insult and so has not developed these same connertations.

    An interesting point was made about anti-immigration not meaning racist. Well lets all come up to my lefty-hill and see what I see for a moment. We have an expanding economy. More people are employed in more jobs today than there have been for generations, meaning that the British economy still has the capacity to take in more people. Then there is my previous argument about diversity giving greater methods of looking at things. Bringing in other cultues also brings in new methods of entertainment, different foods (as Leachboy mentioned) and even more ways of finding happiness (meditation for an example is being taken up by many more people (including white people) in Britain). So what I see is benefits from (controlled) immigration. As already mentioned I refute the alegations that shannonjacobs makes. So when I see people complaining about immigration, wanting to REVERSE it, what can I see but a fear and hatred of other people, poorly reasoned and badly argued (I may be stupid shannon, but I don't have to resort to insults to get my argument across)? From where I stand the argument has to be racist or at least xenephobic, because your arguments do not stand scrutiny. I throughly believe this because I am also quite open minded, and I have already shifted my argument in favour of tighter immigation controls over the last few years, but I do not believe stopping it is the answer.

    If you want me to accept that anti immigration is not racism, then why should I accept that pro (controlled) immigration is anti-white? I strongly support the human rights of white people, not because they are white, but because they are people. What is more, I have freinds of African and Asian decent who agree that human rights should be maintained for all people. I think the problems that you talk of for gangs and minorities living together can as much be explained by social deprevation (which is why they also happen in primarily white based communities) and unease (because for some reason ethinic minorities have a tendancy to think that some people don't want them there. Can't imagine why shannon)

    Should all white people be exiled from Africa? This is the domain of the black people isn't it, following on from other people's arguments (not one I agree with though). Indeed, they are in some African nations. But does that give us the right to exile black people? The main difference that I can see is that our government has democratic controls and is based on public politics, so the public have a responsibility to protect the interests of all people. Many nations with zero tolerence on immigration are not, they have to do what the government, who is impossed upon them, say they have to do. It took a long time to liberalise Europe and America, almost 2000 years in fact. Given time I'm sure democratic instituions will prevail and that migration in all directions will become less of a problem.

    There are some issues which I do not fully understand however. Why, in your opinion, are black people not like white people? What makes Asians so different? Do you deny that we all feel the same emotions? Do you deny that we all deserve the freedom to travel (afterall, how do you think Brits would react to being told we couldn't go on holiday to the Carribean? Wouldn't Saga be less interesting without it's tours of the Great Wall of China? Even people in Spain are more tanned than the British, perhaps we should avoid going on holiday to the Costa del Sol?). I really don't see that cultural difference should make much of a difference. Okay, some hard line religious enthusiasts go far in who their daughters marry, but this is a small and (given time) a solvable problem. Perhaps on the same princable we should ban Mel Gibson because of his hard line interests shown in his latest movie 'The Passion of the Christ'. On no wait, he's white isn't he. Because that makes all the difference. (I'll point out now that the last comment was sarcastic. I'm not saying anyone in the thread wouldn't realise that, but I've noticed that ocassionally you get people on UKL who miss the point if it isn't spelled out).

    Let's look at one last argument for migration of people. I like bannanas. I like orananges. I like Apples in the winter. I don't particuly like tea or coffee, but I don't think my parents or brother would survive without them. I also like my bike, which is made from aluminium. The plastics used in my PC printer are made from oils origionating in the middle east. Tell me, if people can not migrate, then how are they going to construct business deals that will allow me to have the lifestyle that I'm used to, indeed, the lifestyle that allows UKL to work? Do you think the British population would be willing to accept such a big dent in our lifestyle. Would you be willing to accept it? Somehow, I think not.
    Offline

    3
    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.
    What do you mean "maybe Anglo"? Do you mean English?

    So, if both your parents are citizens and you are ethnically Irish, Scottish, Welsh you are entitled to citizenship. But, if both your parents are citizens and you are ethnically English then.....maybe....you are entitled to citizenship. I thought the English were the majority; odd how we become second class citizens by your standard of evaluation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    *Leachboy digs in for the long fight* Good posts by Minor_Deity, ChemistBoy and others, I also like to call to call myself pro-people.

    What frustrates me most about this sort of argument is that people cannot take the long view, and look at what has occured with previous ethnic groups. Look at the Jewish communities and black people. Several decades ago they were "parasites" and "monkeys" in the view of many. Now, they are almost entirely intergrated into English society. There is some lingering anti-semetism and anti-black racism, but it is dwarfed by the hatred for Indians, Pakistanis, Muslims and asylum seekers. These groups are now "dotheads", "pakis", "dirty Arabs" and "scroungers". Can you not see the cyclical nature of immigration? The new waves of immigration generate tension, but this diminishes over time as the groups become intergrated as a part of English culture.

    You refer to the strong communties of ethnic minorities. These are formed as defensive identities because of racial intolerance. They form these communities because they do not feel safe. Make them welcome and there will be no need for such insularity. Equally, you refer to racial discrimination in marriage amongest these communities. This will diminish over time, as families become socialised with English norms and values. You spoken to any second generation Indians lately? All the ones that I know are much more English then Indian.

    I find the extreme left to be just as repellent as the extreme right. Both ten to be composed of idiots. Did you not see the recent BBC documentry of the BNP? Nice bunch you want running the country. I believe in a leftwing government, simply as a compassionate counter to the tendency of a capitalist right wing country to promote intolerance and inequality. If you like white people so much, you should come to Essex. About as white and middle class as it gets. Paradise? Actually, its a nasty, intolerant, bland place to live. Give me multicultural London anyday.

    Sashh makes a good point, the English immigration and Asylum system is pretty hellish actually, not a soft touch. Ever stop and wonder why so many Indians own corner shops, and pressure their children to become doctors? Because they want to become useful members of our country, they don't want to be "scroungers". If you own a shop, you can say "This business is mine. Its not much, but I run a business, support my family and contribute to the community" There are many white benefits fraudsters who cannot say so much. Equally, a doctor is an enormously respected job, a important member of the community. See where I'm going with this?

    Finally, you keep pointing to places like Saudi Arabia and China, apparantly supporting their immigration policies. Not shining examples I'd care to follow. English doesn't equal white, because we are (hopefully) evolving past the point where we have to define ourselves by our ethnicity and religion. Dividing ourselves up into tribes based on colour and religion is a very primitive thing to do. It's a step backwards, not the way forward. We can be better then that. English people are simply people who are part of English culture, and they can be black, white, Muslim, Christian, atheist, whatever. Its an intangible set of values, not defined as White and Christian.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Leachboy)
    *Dividing ourselves up into tribes based on colour and religion is a very primitive thing to do. It's a step backwards, not the way forward. We can be better then that. English people are simply people who are part of English culture, and they can be black, white, Muslim, Christian, atheist, whatever. Its an intangible set of values, not defined as White and Christian.
    I tend to agree with you in principle, but then the question arises: what do you mean by "English culture"? and what about the people who are not able, or do not want to integrate in this "English culture"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gnostic XXX)
    This is exactly why England no longer deserves to exist. The English liberals are incurably nihilist - "what is English culture?" they ask and blink their eyes. "There is no such thing as English culture". "Lets let everyone in - it'll be real cool" - only when a nation loses is instinct to preserve itself is such nihilist nonsense considered right and proper.
    .
    Globalization, dear friend. Goods, services, capital are flowing freely (more or less). How can you stop people from following?

    Also, different cultures are (at least at European level), much less distinctive than in the past.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Oh dear, the world must look quite miserable to you today Gnostic XXX. Well, do not despaire too much because all though I would not declare myself nationalistic as you seem to present yourself, but I am very definantly patriotic. I will defend our country, I will save it from tyranny and hardship and pain. Just be aware that this means while I will fight Abu Hamza, I will also fight Nick Griffin, and anyone else who seems to be intent on destroying the peaceful and liberal culture we hold in Britain today.

    I don't like extreamism, because I don't like the pain and fear that it causes. As II said before, I am pro people and while Britain is made up of people, I'll be here to help her stay safe and sound. And I'm sure I'm not the only one. Whatever we may think of Tony Blair, Micheal Howard or Charles Kennedy I'm sure that they'll all make sure that britain never truly dies, and that it's people, ALL of its people Shannon, will continue to be happy.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    France has actually over taken Britain in the amount of immigrants it takes
    For once.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So a culture that is centuries old is irrevocably destroyed by a few non-white people immigrating? Doesn't sound like a particularly convincing argument. I never claimed that there is no English culture, just that it has become more diverse, more complex and less easily defined. And therefore much more interesting.

    Oh, and Thatcher was a muppet by the way. She did more to shaft the country then any politician I can remember. Knackering British industry, war with the unions, privatising left right and centre, supporting brutal dictators, etc. And if she was "an Englishman", then, wow, that kinda explains a few things :rolleyes:


    QUOTE by Giordano
    I tend to agree with you in principle, but then the question arises: what do you mean by "English culture"? and what about the people who are not able, or do not want to integrate in this "English culture"


    Ah, thats the joy of postmodernism, everything is hard to define. I'm not sure I can give a precise definition of English culture. It is very hard to define, something to do with a persons outlook on life. All I can say is that it has nothing to do with being white. As for those "who are not able, or do not want to intergrate in this English culture" they are still welcome, as long as they contribute in some manner to the country, and do not break its laws. People like this will always be in a minority, as it is very difficult to resist the socialising influence of a country over a long period of time, particularly if you are born here as a second or third generation immigrant.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Leachboy)
    I'm not sure I can give a precise definition of English culture. It is very hard to define, something to do with a persons outlook on life. All I can say is that it has nothing to do with being white. As for those "who are not able, or do not want to intergrate in this English culture" they are still welcome, as long as they contribute in some manner to the country, and do not break its laws. People like this will always be in a minority, as it is very difficult to resist the socialising influence of a country over a long period of time, particularly if you are born here as a second or third generation immigrant.
    This is the American, "melting pot" approach. It used to work in the past. Now, more and more ethnic, religious minorities rediscover their identity and are not so eager to merge in the dominant culture.

    Also, when a minority becomes quite important, in numbers and influence, it tends to challenge the dominant culture, and asks for its values to be accomodated. This can cause serious problems, as you can see in France with the hijab question etc
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by giordano)
    This is the American, "melting pot" approach. It used to work in the past. Now, more and more ethnic, religious minorities rediscover their identity and are not so eager to merge in the dominant culture.

    Also, when a minority becomes quite important, in numbers and influence, it tends to challenge the dominant culture, and asks for its values to be accomodated. This can cause serious problems, as you can see in France with the hijab question etc
    I'm not a particular fan of the melting pot, as I think a homogenised culture is unhealthy and boring. I'm more a fan of a fruit bowl effect Everyone has common points (they live in close proximity to each other, and they are all fruit/English) but retain their individual identities. A fruit bowl just filled with apples gets pretty dull pretty fast.

    France tries to be an ultimate melting pot, in what seems to me to be quite a paranoid and insecure fashion. Thus, differences between people have to be expunged rather then tolerated. I think the headscarf/religious insignia ban is disgusting and deeply undemocratic. I don't think allowing women to wear headscarves would be a very onerous "accomadation" by the French government.

    I think being English should mean that England is important to you, but it shouldn't have to be your strongest loyalty or your only one. For example, I love England and am patriotic, but my first loyalty is supporting fair treatment and justice for all people. Thus, I would betray my country if I felt it was necessary, if for example England become a fascist country. Equally, it is fine if you define yourself as a Muslim first and English second. People who hate England or have zero loyalty to it, for example Abu Hamza, should not be here in the first place. However, I still maintain that the truly crazy/intolerant members of ethnic minorities will always be a tiny minority in a tiny minority.

    I don't have any exact figures, but lets say 5% of the English population is Muslim. If we accept that 10% of these are like Abu Hamza, thats still only 0.5% of the population in danger of causing real trouble. Not really likely to overthrow the social order or irreperably damage English culture anytime soon, in my opinion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Leachboy)
    .

    France tries to be an ultimate melting pot, in what seems to me to be quite a paranoid and insecure fashion. Thus, differences between people have to be expunged rather then tolerated. I think the headscarf/religious insignia ban is disgusting and deeply undemocratic. I don't think allowing women to wear headscarves would be a very onerous "accomadation" by the French government.
    I hesitate on the headscarf question. I wouldn't like schools where people are identified by their hijab/kippah/cross. Political insignia should also be kept out of the schools.

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't have any exact figures, but lets say 5% of the English population is Muslim. If we accept that 10% of these are like Abu Hamza, thats still only 0.5% of the population in danger of causing real trouble. Not really likely to overthrow the social order or irreperably damage English culture anytime soon, in my opinion.[/QUOTE]

    Real problems usually start when a minority reaches 15-20 % or so. Then they ask for special schools, hospitals etc. Their language has to become a national language and be used in courts and legislative activities. A culture of "apartheid" develops, each community evolving in isolation

    When the two communities are even more evenly matched (look at Northern Ireland or even, less dramatic, Belgium) you have a recipe for disaster
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by giordano)
    I hesitate on the headscarf question. I wouldn't like schools where people are identified by their hijab/kippah/cross. Political insignia should also be kept out of the schools.

    Real problems usually start when a minority reaches 15-20 % or so. Then they ask for special schools, hospitals etc. Their language has to become a national language and be used in courts and legislative activities. A culture of "apartheid" develops, each community evolving in isolation

    When the two communities are even more evenly matched (look at Northern Ireland or even, less dramatic, Belgium) you have a recipe for disaster
    Valid points all, but in the case of Northern Ireland the immigration was forced, and was accompanied by violence and oppression towards the catholics. I don't know what the situation was when Belgium was formed, but I'm guessing two provinces joined together. Sudden mass immigration can obviously cause long term problems. However, I think gradual immigration simply causes migrants to be absorbed, partially or completely, by the culture they are entering, and is healthy for a country.

    I dislike faith schools and insular ethnic communities, as they hinder socialisation and breed intolerance. So on a number of points we agree. However, the number of migrants tends to be exaggerated by certain branches of the press, and I do not feel it is approaching anywhere near critical mass. The majority of migrants simply want to become a part of this country and live together in peace, and it is a very small, if vocal, minority that grabs the headlines. I'm all for migration controls, I just think they should be sensible and considered, and that under controlled circumstances immigration benefits this country.

    In reply to the headscaf question, I think that in a democracy people should have a right to self expression, so long as it does not greatly offend others (wandering around with a Tshirt saying"******* must die", or something similar). Also, the law is inherantly discriminatory towards religions with more visable religious symbols, like Sikhs and Muslims. I don't think anyone except bigots would be offended by a girl wearing a headscarf.

    This may be my last post for a while, as I'm going away for a week, but it was good debating with you giordano, you make intelligent points in a logical, considered fashion. If this debate is still running a week from now, I'll be back for more .
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Leachboy)
    Valid points all, but in the case of Northern Ireland the immigration was forced, and was accompanied by violence and oppression towards the catholics. I don't know what the situation was when Belgium was formed, but I'm guessing two provinces joined together. Sudden mass immigration can obviously cause long term problems. However, I think gradual immigration simply causes migrants to be absorbed, partially or completely, by the culture they are entering, and is healthy for a country.

    I dislike faith schools and insular ethnic communities, as they hinder socialisation and breed intolerance. So on a number of points we agree. However, the number of migrants tends to be exaggerated by certain branches of the press, and I do not feel it is approaching anywhere near critical mass. The majority of migrants simply want to become a part of this country and live together in peace, and it is a very small, if vocal, minority that grabs the headlines. I'm all for migration controls, I just think they should be sensible and considered, and that under controlled circumstances immigration benefits this country.

    In reply to the headscaf question, I think that in a democracy people should have a right to self expression, so long as it does not greatly offend others (wandering around with a Tshirt saying"******* must die", or something similar). Also, the law is inherantly discriminatory towards religions with more visable religious symbols, like Sikhs and Muslims. I don't think anyone except bigots would be offended by a girl wearing a headscarf.

    This may be my last post for a while, as I'm going away for a week, but it was good debating with you giordano, you make intelligent points in a logical, considered fashion. If this debate is still running a week from now, I'll be back for more .
    Too bad Im out of rep for the day, cus this one would certainly deserve one. Imigration controlls are necessary in order to make the society stay together some times, but they should not be used in order to prevent foreign culture from entering the country. Same with the law, extremists contradicting human rights should be dealt with, but you should not take away people's self-determination which is a human right.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What a revalation, London has a lot of inner city poor areas! This has been true for a long time, even before mass immigration. So all this "study" can do is claim a few hundred million spent when these immigrants must be paying billions in taxes each year.

    There's nothing to suggest that immigration has caused a net loss to our economy. All this study proves is that economic poverty causes problems regardless of race.

    Guess what guys, immigrants generally arrive poor!

    Oh yeah, poor people generally do truant/commit crime more than average!

    It's called a self fulfilling prophecy.

    Edit: There's also some real comedy in this "study":

    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)
    No ****, London has about the same population of Scotland and Wales combined and so naturally it has more unemployed people since unemployment in big cities is generally a bit higher.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Oh yeah, poor people generally do truant/commit crime more than average!
    The main point is however that you do not punish an entire people for the doings of a small minority within it. Eaven if the crime rate among immigrants were significantly higher than among natives (which is rubbish) that would not justify discrimination against imigrants. You simply do not judge a person based on the doings of others. Just as you would not discriminate German immigrants because of what Hitler did , you should not discriminate Afghan immigrants based on what the Talebans did. People have the right to be treated according to their own qualifications and criminal record / lack thereof, and not based on the wrongdoings of others.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    The main point is however that you do not punish an entire people for the doings of a small minority within it. Eaven if the crime rate among immigrants were significantly higher than among natives (which is rubbish) that would not justify discrimination against imigrants. You simply do not judge a person based on the doings of others. Just as you would not discriminate German immigrants because of what Hitler did , you should not discriminate Afghan immigrants based on what the Talebans did. People have the right to be treated according to their own qualifications and criminal record / lack thereof, and not based on the wrongdoings of others.
    Well duh, you're preaching to the converted.

    I was just pointing out that since it's really down to economic disadvantage it's only temporary until the immigrants have experienced some upward social mobility.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Well duh, you're preaching to the converted.

    I was just pointing out that since it's really down to economic disadvantage it's only temporary until the immigrants have experienced some upward social mobility.
    I wasnt trying to correct you, I just pointed out something people often forget when they discuss crime rates among ethnic minorities / immigrants.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    I wasnt trying to correct you, I just pointed out something people often forget when they discuss crime rates among ethnic minorities / immigrants.
    Oh, rightio.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
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.