Right I believe these are the posts quoting me, so I'll respond to them first.
You surely cannot be naive enough to notice in Britain that various behaviours or attitudes constantly get referred to as "racist", when in fact they are not. Racism is, of course, saying that one race is superior to another.
It seems to be the case now that when one is talking about anything concerning nationality, race, cosmopolitanism etc with a, shall I say, "conservative" or "preservating" tone, they are wrongly labelled a racist, hence why I mentioned that what I was saying was in no way saying one race was superior to another, and thus why I wrote that.
For goodness sake please read my post:
2) I was referring to POLITICS, not the press. The press are actually one of the few places that do discuss this, and whilst I don't agree entirely with the way they do it, I am glad that they do do it. If you were discuss this in certain workplaces, then you would be sacked. It never gets discussed in Politics, particularly in the arenas of the House Of Commons. Yes there are a few more important issues like the Economy, however it is quite clear from the British public that they see this as a VERY important issue and I don't think the Politicians represent that. I think the three main parties in particular like to keep quiet over the issue, and like has been mentioned, I doubt they few politicians actually live in areas that are effected (and if it is in their constituency then they live "richer" areas due to their salary.
I am not talking about discussions such as those taking place in the media or currently in the TotalRL Fans Forum. I am talking about this kind of debate in mainstream politics and in jurisprudence. Like I said above I believe that there is no outline as to where this country is heading towards (though the same could easily be said for energy, education, welfare issues; and not just immigration and demographic issues) and thus we are blindly heading down a path that I can see raising challenges. It is quite clear that what the Liberal Democrats thoughts on these issues are and perhaps too with UKIP, but over the past decade Labour and the Conservatives have been notably quiet and have not been honest with their thoughts and opinions (and thus with policy seeing as they have both been in power).
To link this point with the one above, yes I believe it is generally persons of a "liberalist" nature and opinion who are the first to shout RACIST, whenever anyone takes the view that I do.
Do you not see how your second line and your fourth line contradict each other?
Unless you are alluding to the fact that there are now so many communities of immigrants in Britain now that they are simply interact and converse with their own community and have no real need to converse and interact with the country as a whole (and thus in the English language)?
But of course look at that situation in a broader light and you will find of course you are not just placing a limitation on yourself by not knowing English, but a limitation on THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE. Both in a social sense (it does not create a very united or even friendly society) and in an economic sense (you are essentially unable to work and require others, through social services, to aid you).
It will be an organic culture that is broadly based on the values that have developed in Britain (and should I say thus the Western world or Western Europe) for hundreds of years. These include those of a liberal-conservative nature politically (and no I don't mean non-socialist or whatever, I'm talking about the broad values that have changed Britain from 1500-2000), the Christian values that our society was grown out of (have you ever wondering why we consider polygamy and cannibalism wrong in this country?), alongside various customs. I would be confident that it would be a much more united state then I feel Britain currently is now. Many of the problems I note below will be eliminated or diminished.
Of course this society will change! With the advent of economic globalisation and of the internet it is clear that every society in the world is changing. It will be changing at a much faster rate than Britain changed between the years 1000-1950. However on an inward level, it will not be changing at the rate it currently is doing due to mass immigration. Like I have mentioned I believe that Britain is changing at a rate which is much faster then most places on Planet Earth, and most places do have economic globalisation and the internet of course. I will explain that more below.
For goodness sake those that are using the "1000 year multicultural argument" - can you not see the flaw in this? Can you not see a difference in gradual change incorporating different aspects of new and foreign values/customs/languages that has happened in Britains history from Year Dot to the change that has occured in the last few years? Can you honestly describe 1921 Britain as being just as multicultural as 2011 Britain? Do I really have to explain the difference?
Okay that's alot of questions.
At the moment in the UK, around 600,000 new people are coming to the country every year. Looking at European figures (for I do not have non-EU Britain figures) I would guess between 60-75% are non-EU. Around 330,000 people are emigrating every year - are they of British background or are they new British citizens migrating again? - if the UK government knows then they aren't telling us. Britain currently has around 11.9% of it's population born abroad, which for a country with our population and economic clout is a hell of a lot. There are a few types of countries ahead - those of fellow Western European states, those that are tiny (Andorra!) and the desert Middle Eastern states (UAE/Qatar). The government have stated that they want to get net-migration down to 100,000 a year by 2015 - which quite frankly is hilarious because there is no way they are going to hit it. For a start Britain has an immigration backlog the same size as Iceland's population. It is also believed that Britain could potentially be home to a million illegal immigrants.
I believe that the problems that could be faced by Britain due to these issues can fall into two types: population (you would get the same issues if you had a ridiculously high birth rate) and cultural. The thing is the cultural requires a deeper look to where new migrants are coming from. For instance there is a smaller cultural gap between a Frenchman coming to Britain than an Omanian coming to Britain. Germany, Ukraine, Canada and Saudi Arabia all have similar levels to Britain but it has been said that for many countries it could just be "next door neighbour" migration and not "half the world away" migration. Due to the English language, links with the British Empire, beliefs that our system is "easy", minimum conditions, and welfare benefits it could be that Britain has a much lower % of next door neighbour migration. Out of the top 10 countries where people have moved to Britain just two (Ireland and Germany) are EU countries. The broader trend is obvious: it is all towards where the money is: Canada, US, Western Europe, the "Oil" Gulf (though they had sparser populations to start off with) but some quite economically advanced countries - Japan, South Korea, Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, Iran, China, Iceland, Finland, India, Turkey - it is much lower because they have implemented quotas and limits and probably have less "liberal" political attitudes.
As for a figure I would have to say something closer to the 100,000 mark. And that's not net, that's total. I'm not sure if it's possible to do an EU/non-EU split? Though if there was I would probably consider a 70/30.
The principles broadly explained above. On a more practical level skills must be looked at (including English speaking skills). I would admit it is incredibly hard to gauge something like that. It is perhaps ironic that we are typing this just a few days after the "Birmingham bomb plot" was revealed. For some stupid reason I feel the Oscar Pistorius story has taken some of the focus off of it but it's a frightening situation to be in when you discover the extent that "home-grown" Jihadists are now being "indoctrinated" to murder innocent lives. You feel a different level of coldness when you hear news of men in the Middle East and the Sahara wanting to commit these atrocities, compared to when you hear news of men from British cities like Birmingham wanting to commit them. Of course those who are British citizens have a much larger likelihood of succeeding than those from the Middle East. Britain has apparently been on critical alert for years now, and our security and intelligence agencies saying that this is a grave threat is something most will know has been the case for years. It will definitely happen: it is an inevitability. And it is extremely likely now I think for it to be undertaken by British citizens. Where or when they will be - who knows. I had read that in the past 18 months British security services and Police has managed to prevent 7 terrorist attacks in just 18 months, and it was believed that most where "home grown" bombers. Again I have read (those this time in a newspaper so it might not be as accurate) that Britain is now the Western country most likely to suffer from a terrorist attack.
The contribution to the economy seems to be an after thought to the principles in most cases. We of course have thousands unemployed, particularly young people, and there is so much argument over "are British youngsters willingly able to do it" that the area is murky. For the good of the country though I think the focus does need to be on highly-skilled personnel that cannot be quickly replaced by Britain's unemployed. It is a strong argument to suggest that for the good country - doctors and engineers are needed; but fast food workers, strawberry pickers or corner shop owners are not.
The asylum seeker question is regularly asked - I believe Britain has around 30,000 asylum seekers being granted per year, with around the same number being given the No. During the Blair government though this had reached around 90,000. The problems I have heard with asylum seekers is that it is hard to know what situation they are actually in back home. Is it just a state of economic desperation and poverty? Or is it of genocide and blacklisting? There was a story of a homosexual man from Burundi wanting asylum because he would be shot if he went back there (I believe he was caught with his pants down). The other problem is the case of if you let one you should let everyone in on the same principle. A country like DR Congo with a population of 70 million could quite easily disintegrate into civil war which would usually happen with a racial/tribal background. Is it principle to then allow everyone from DR Congo to then be accepted into Britain? This essentially boils down to whether you believe in cosmopolitanism and to what extent. I suppose I would argue that certain asylum seekers be granted asylum but I would have to say that this too would have to be capped. Could five or ten year asylums be granted? But what is the likelihood of them being sustained? Families of course should never have to be split up. I shall talk at the alternatives to asylum at the end.
Are immigrants entitled to benefits. No. Certainly not until the first say 5 or even 10 years.
The bit about foreign nations I agree with. We'll keep our criminals and they can keep theirs.
The bit about our aging population is spot on. It is going to be a HUGE problem for the future. The solution though is not to attempt to radically increase the young population to support the elderly, otherwise this will need to be repeated indefinitely. Practical solutions would be to raise the retirement age and more sensible pensions plans. I know we cherish our NHS, but in 20 years I think it going to have to be significantly changed (in terms of what it offers) if it is to be sustainable. Britain will get older as a society, it will be the same for Japan and Italy and France etc, but it is inevitable and we must live with it and adapt to it. I would like to also mention work ethic and perhaps more importantly: the health of the population. Obesity in particular is causing our population to quite frankly decay in some cases with many illnesses (diabetes etc) on the rapid increase. An unhealthy nation is not good for our future.
Okay I mentioned alternative to asylum above. These things must be looked at, though I do understand bad things will always happen sometimes in certain parts of the world. There has been much said though that Africa (whilst not blessed with natural resources) has been wrecked by greedy tyranical regimes, tribal conflict and AIDS and health issues. It has been suggested too that certain Middle East and Asian countries have been wrecked by political Islam which has stifled development. There are several key changes that I believe can happen to make the world a better place, but I particularly see the significance in two.
Last week the Pope stood down as, well, Pope! There has been much criticism of the Catholic Church and most of it is entirely justified. One of the biggest problems I have with the Catholic Church is concerning their stance on contraception. Quite simply the lack of contraception is WRECKING Africa. It is not only causing Aids and illnesses to spread, but is causing the population in Africa to explode at levels which are not sustainable. The Catholic Church which now has a grip over Western and Southern Africa needs to get a flipping grip and governments should over-rule their doctrines. Secondly I believe that Western companies are not paying their dues in Africa in terms of fair taxes and payments. Despite it's poverty Africa and East Asia do have natural resources and they do have large labour forces. Western governments need to man up and tell their own companies (with their head officers in London, New York, Berlin etc) to start taking responsibility and paying what is due to African nations. Longer term measures like these are what is needed, not rampant mass-migration to the prosperous West because of rampant overpopulation, crackpot leaders, religious lunacy and economic plundering.
And finally I will mention the problems (as I said I would above) that could be faced for Britain in the future:
Multicultural Problems (I believe #1, #2, #3 and #7 to have the potential to be the worst, with perhaps #4 depending on economic conditions)
* Threat to Britain as a single nation
* Political disintegration (extreme plurality of views) I suggest reading "A Nation Of Immigrants - David Conway f.m.i. *
* Threat to economic stability (most immigrants are not high earners thereby lowering overall figures)
* Increase in racial tensions/blame culture (this tends to happen when a country starts going through a "bad stage")(this is not just UK, Italian and French surveys recognise rising anger/disunity)
* Increase spending in resources for schools due to teaching non-English children English
* Breeding of views that are totally against core British/Western values (seemingly now coming from SOME of Muslim faith)
* Massive increase in the capacity and chance of terrorist attacks occuring in the United Kingdom
* Increased likelihood of illegal immigrants who are essentially "unknown" to the authorities
* Social segregation in towns/cities (have you ever walked past someone holding up a sign saying "Sharia: the Future for the UK" I HAVE!)
* Limits the chance of British people finding jobs due to increased competition (concerning young people fearing immigrants' jobs the British Council described this as "very worrying")
* Causes a lack of distinction between nations
* Beliefs that it may even effect the likes of the armed forces or emergency services ("doing something noble for one's country")(fingers crossed we will never need to enforce conscription again)
* Increased levels of crime, including violent crime (several studies have looked at the high link between crime and Eastern European males in the UK)
* Threat to countryside (estimated that 43% of new homes being built in the UK [I would presume on green land] are intended for migrants)
Overpopulation Threat (UK will hit 70 million by 2025, 70% due to immigration, native Britons birth rate is believed to be just below replacement rate)
* Threats to homes (drainage/flooding)
* Threats to schools/hospitals
* Threats to countryside/wildlife
* Threats to farming and to agriculture (another 2 million homes are being planned to be built)
* Increase in pollution
* Global warming
* Food shortages (on an international level)
* Energy shortages (on an international level)
* Smaller living space
* Increased price of land
* Traffic congestion
* Water provision
* And we all know that overpopulation generally leads to more poverty
Of course these bullet points are all very one-sided. Immigration does bring benefits. But do the benefits outweigh the detriments??
They do for controlled/necessary immigration, but not for mass-immigration.
David Conway, Institute for the Study of Civil Society
* David Conway takes issue with those who minimise the threat posed by mass immigration by claiming that this is nothing new; that we are a 'mongrel nation'; and that, in the words of the Commission on Racial Equality, 'everyone who lives in Britain today is either an immigrant or the descendant of an immigrant' (pp.2-3). He argues, to the contrary, that from the time England can be considered to have become a nation, immigration has never risen above very low levels and had no serious demographic impact until the last part of the twentieth century. Since 1997, however, Tony Blair's Labour government has effectively abandoned even the goal of limiting immigration. As a result, by encouraging unending mass immigration as a permanent feature of the political landscape, there may result a disintegration of the bonds that hold together the group of people that constitutes a nation: