Shotgungold you really are quite xenophobic. Migration Watch is hardly a trusted and unbiased source
"In Luton, 81 per cent of people said they identified as British."
"Fewer than 10% of cities have a White British & Irish minority"
Our emigrants are other countries immigrants. What will we do with all the ex-pats returning from India, Hong Kong, Spain, Portugal, France, Canada, Aus, NZ, South Africa, the US, West Inides, Patagonia etc? Must be millions of 'em!
Fine call me what you want. I'm past caring to be honest! Most people are now!
I never directly quoted Migration Watch, a national newspaper did. Unfortunately many think-tanks (naturally) have political leanings so please, show me a 100% unbiased source! I think really you understand the general picture.
My mother-in-law is Indian, albeit now with a British passport, and she's often heard ranting about these "bloody immigrants ruining Britain" after reading her Daily Mail. She really doesn't see that she's an immigrant herself and that she's essentially just wanting to pull up the ladder behind herself.
Yes but at some point it does need to be pulled up!!
They are himmygrunts though. Part of the 'not born here, can't belong here' stats quoted above.
My reason for those statistics were more to emphasise EXTENT. In fact my whole argument revolves around the idea of EXTENT. It is certainly not a 'not born here, can't belong here' mentality.
Perhaps this is just the 2010 talking in me, but I think that in the 1950s/1960s I would have welcomed many of the West Indian immigrants. Fighting for the British Empire during the war, labour shortages, and of course they had a thoroughly British education back then too (as colonies). By 1970 there were less than 250,000 of them. And I stated earlier that I don't mind the paltry numbers of asylum seekers/refugees we welcome into the country.
It's the extent and the state-multiculturalism I disagree with.