Oh, goody. A conspiracy thread.
I don’t think conspiracies are any explanation. I also wonder how familiar code_grey is with the situation in England. If anyone wants to debate the increase of surveillance in western Europe, I’d be interested, but I don’t think this thread is the right place - simply because I don’t think immigration is a significant (apparent) cause (and especially not in the UK).
Haven’t the Tories run explicitly anti-immigrant campaigns over the past decade? If people really wanted to reduce immigration, they had the chance.
Ahem
Not for the first time mate.
Yah, mate, you had signs, “no Dogs or Irish”, right?
Well, Europe has rather moved faster than you did, “eventually” in your terms - as an immigrant society I might add, took what, 50 odd years for each wave?
Europe is in its first (modern) wave of immigration, the oldest of which dates to the late 1950s, but mostly the 1960s. Barely the same period, and the bulk in the late 1960s through 1970s until employment growth dropped off.
A bit of chronological perspective, eh?
I don’t think objective (as opposed to the hysteria mongerers) data suggests that integration is all that worse than say the Jews of the 19th century that flowed out of the Russian Pale.
Sadly, most of the language that the racists/fear mongerers are using spookily echoes the same bloody language used against the Jews from Eastern Europe in that era.
And it’s not bloody Godwinising, it’s a bloody fact.
Is there a “US view”?
I’d say those not in the British National Party wing of things are rather less hysteric about immigration.
That is not to say that there are not problems (and relative to the Muslims, some sores to be lanced, but most of our IndoPak Muslims are bloody decent folks that no right thinking person has a problem with).
Yeah, well look at the bloody European empires and our spreading of Christianity. Not too bloody different mate, not too bloody different at all. Indeed for most of our history (16-early 19th centuries), rather nastier relative to religious tolerance.
Get a grip.
Pure Bollocks.
Quite right, quite bloody right. And worse, the language the Pyms are using is a near copy of that used relative to the “New Jews” from the East.
Quite. Quite right indeed. Especially since those Muslims in Netherlands either come from Indonesia which the Dutch imposed a rather bloody minded colonisation on, or the old French colonies of North Africa, which protected their Jews against the French, I was told.
Nasty folks, the racist Left.
]
What the bloody fuck are you on about, 'low level warfare against the British people"?
I haven’t seen anything remotely like this comment except from the Neo Nazi BNP.
Gov’t isn’t “importing” any bloody immigrants, for fuck’s sake.
It’s quite the racist interpretation to call 2nd and 3rd generation descendants “immigrants” - but the Froggies have always been good at lip service to Equality while stomping all over it.
But in any event, riots in France are an old tradition, I suppose they’re just more scary when the people of the wrong skin colour or name do it.
I’d ask you to get a clue before commenting on UK things, right? Or to refrain from parroting BNP type pamphlet propaganda here.
Something wrong with your bloody eyes, “mate”? I encourage you to read the very next sentence in my post after getting them examined.
Nothing wrong with my eyes nor anything in that which changed my response.
I don’t think it’s fair to accuse them of being explicitly anti-immigration. Or even implicitly so. No doubt some people who vote Conservative are not too keen on the whole immigration thing, but it is not the stated or implied position of the party. That’s why UKIP exists, after all.
What I said was 100% true, and your overreaction to it was inappropriate and made you look shrill. Don’t tell me to get a grip while you’re in the middle of losing it.
I haven’t been able to determine what, if anything, you’re saying here so I don’t think I’ll be alone in saying, no. The only perspective that incoherent string of ‘sentences’ has provided is a better understanding of what it must be like to be aphasic.
The waves of immigrants are much different now than in the past.
In the past immigrants came to a new land and WANTED to be part of that country. My folks came over here from Yugoslavia after WWII. I asked my mum and dad, if they’d ever go back, even for a visit, the answer was always, “NO, if it was any good I wouldn’t have left.”
But that isn’t the attitude of immigrants to day. It’s really about economics, not starting a new life.
Immigrants come to the USA but refuse to give up their other citizenship, just in case. How good of an American are you going to be if you don’t believe in the country in the first place?
I’ve seen many immigrants vote in their national elections back home, serve in their militaries etc.
This is very problematic.
Immigrants in my parents day came to America with the expectation they would be AMERICANS they would try to fit in.
I recall my 70 year old landlady from Poland, she would always ask me questions, like “Do I sound American.” I’d tell her “You’re English is good.” But she WANTED to sound American, not like she was from Poland. I told her “you’ll probably always have an accent” (of course she would). But it shows the attitude.
When late night host Craig Ferguson becomes an American yet refuses to give up his UK citizenship, the message is, “It’s OK to be an American provided you can always go back.”
This is about economics. When Islamic people come to France and refuse to adopt customs they are saying “We want to come to France to make money, but not to participate in the history of the nation.”
Immigration should be a simple issue, but it’s always shaded because people refuse to recognize a difference between legal and illegal immigrants and immigration to a new land to BECOME a member of that society and immigration to a new land to make money.
How would you feel if you invited someone over to your home and they said,
“I will do just as I please without any regard to your standards.”
That is essentially what these immigrants are doing.
What he is saying is quite true at least here in the Netherlands – the waves of immigration to Europe have happened within one lifetime, since the 1960s. The historical waves of immigration in the US to which he refers took place over a much longer period of time. Though this ignores of course the waves of immigration to the US from Mexico, South America, Southeast Asia, and China, which also hit about once a decade starting in the 70s.
I suspect that you are seriously in error on these points.
During the height of the U.S. immigration periods, anywhere from a sixth to a third of those who immigrated DID return to their native lands after securing sufficient income in the U.S. to return as “wealthy” by local standards–a trend that continues today, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the country.
As to those who stayed, there were Irish communities founded before the Civil War who were still extant as recognizably “Irish” as late as the 1970s. There were German communities that continued to speak German, almost exclusively, until the acrimony surrounding WWI forced them to relinquish their culture and even then there were primarily German-speaking neighborhoods into the 1950s. The Italians and Poles have similar stories and Yiddish remained a strong neighborhood language well into the 1960s.
The idea that previous immigrants came with the intent to become “American” as swiftly as they could is simply not supported by the facts. Many did, of course. Many others only assimilated after three and four generations, if then.
Neither do I, hence my less than complete embracing of code_grey’s attempts to portray them.
Well, I’m possibly oversensitive to your status as moderator, but maybe you shouldn’t characterize a whole thread/discussion as a “conspiracy thread” based on a single poster.
If I post as a Mod, I include a tag indicating that I am posting as a Mod.
When I am making sarcastic comments abourt silly posts, I do not include a tag indicating my status.
I’m not sure how to feel about this. I’m an EEA citizen living and working in the UK, as is my legal right, no questions asked. I qualify for UK citizenship, but I’ve chosen not to apply, because I will probably move back to my native country at some point. I’m not here for financial reasons, I’m not here for political reasons, I’m here because it suits me and I like living here - for now. I work, I pay my taxes, I don’t claim benefits. I’m not allowed to vote in UK elections, but I am and still do in my home country. I certainly don’t “do as I please without any regards to their standards”. I abide by UK laws and social norms.
Of course, I’m from a country that has similar cultural values. Integrating isn’t hard for me, and it’s not hard for Brits to accept me. Racism or discrimination isn’t an issue. I look and sound like a native, nobody would know i was a foreigner if I didn’t tell them. I’m not a threat.
I agree with you (I think) on one important point: I chose to live here, I’m free to leave if I don’t like it. It’s up to me to fit in, I shouldn’t expect the country to change to suit me. However, I don’t think committing to being a UK citizen forever more would make my contribution to society more valuable. I’m proud of my nationality, I’m not giving it up.
Where have I heard that song before? Oh, I remember:
The new immigration as a class is far less intelligent than the old. … Generally speaking, they are actuated in coming by different ideals, for the old immigration came to be part of the country, while the new, in a large measure, comes with with the intention of profiting, in a pecuniary way by the superior advantages of the new world and then returning to the old country."
–The Dillingham Report, 1911
*
From Power Line Blog, an articulate presentation by Geert Wilders:
I’m impressed, both by the content and how well he makes his points. My favorite part is where he suggests that European nations could use the equivalent of the First Amendment.
There are a couple of places where I think he goes too far but I’m not sure they are central to his speech.
He says one thing and then says the contrary over and over, yet you think this was a good speech? Examples:
- He knows there are moderate muslims, but thinks Islam is intolerant? Then how could there be moderate…oh wait nevermind, he’s a bigot.
- He calls for a 1st fucking Amendment and then wants to ban the building of mosques? But the 1st Amendment guarantees more than just being a bigoted asshole (which is all he is concerned with).
- Calls Islam (not the people) the problem but then means to solve it by banning immigration from predominantly Muslim countries?
- He really wants people to have freedom of speech but cites many times examples where he seems to wish Muslims would just stfu.
Plus, let’s not forget just ignoring inconvenient facts. For example, he quotes Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan. Why that guy sounds dangerous! How could the Turks allow that guy to be PM in this day and age?! Oh wait! He isn’t, he was PM for a year in 1996 before being asked to leave by the military. Oh wait! There is an Islamist PM right now in Turkey! Too bad he doesn’t say dumbshit things like Erbakan (though Erdogan says a lot of dumshit things). Too bad he’s responsible for the biggest democratization reforms in Turkey since maybe Ataturk. That sure doesn’t fit with Geert’s world view now does it?
So a deposed PM and a born again Libyan Dictator represent all leadership in the “Muslim World”, I wonder how freak’in hard he had to look to find a quote.
As far as the economic cost of Muslims to the Free Peoples of Middle Earth, I got a figure too: $5.16. That’s right, I got that from the same place as Geert, except I had to use my own ass.
But Geert is right when you think about it, just look at what those uppity Muslims do when you give them freedom: they stage genocides! I’m sure when the time comes, Geert will be as clear-eyed as Kardzic on what to do about the Muslim Threat.
It’s too bad that really does pass for a great speech in some people’s eyes.
In addition to this line of thought you have to look at the religions in historical context. Nobody today would appreciate 14th century Christianity. it’s just now maturing into a civil organization that isn’t bent on conquering the world. Islam is stuck in the 3rd century. The universal seat of enlightenment is located in Saudi Arabia where women can’t go out in public alone, little girls are sent back into burning buildings because they don’t have the proper head scarves and gay people are executed.
There are essentially 2 types of Islamic immigrants. Those who want to get away from 3rd century Islam, and those who don’t. It is the latter that civilized countries reject because there will be no melding of culture.