- This topic has 199 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote: from stevedvg on 10:49 am on June 10, 2005[br]<br>It’s hardly surprising as, for so long, travelling to a country across the world was difficult and those who managed it tended to be resourceful and ambitious people.  ÂÂÂ
When many of them found that normal jobs were denied them due to prejudice, they often started businesses. And the same drive and resourcefulness that got them to these shores tended to work well in business.<br>
<br>Yes indeed, Steve, and that held – and holds – true at all levels of ability and scale. I was born and raised in Oldham, and even as a relative youngster it was puzzling to me that the likes of Combat 18 were marching on the town (pretty much from the late 1970s onwards) and trying to whip up fervour against the sizeable non-white population for "stealing all our jobs", when the employment that those Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis had found was mostly that for which they had had the resourcefulness and enterprise you mentioned to set up themselves – private hire cabs, grocers, food outlets, etc.
The real villains of the piece in Oldham were, and have continued to be ever since, the successive Councils who have all made minimal effort to attract the high-volume employers required to offset the huge unemployment caused by the death of the mill industries in the town – even now, over 25 years after that particular industry died, there’s still an almighty hole still needing filling. Even worse than that, however, has been the sustained turning of a blind eye to the tensions caused by that high unemployment rate and the aforementioned resultant increasing racial dimension to the disquiet… and then the Council wondered why the town quite literally went up in smoke a couple of years ago.
Jeremy<br>(graysonscolumn)<br>
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Quote: from dave jay on 1:35 pm on June 10, 2005[br]<br>More than 1M people voted BNP in this country at every given opportunity. I don’t know why this is because I would never consider voting for any extreme party at this point in time or for the forseeable future, unless things changed and I felt threatened or unrepresented by my elected presentative. As the old saying goes there’s no smoke without fire. I believe that the current immigration fiasco will all end in tears and will polarise Britain and British politics to the detriment of all.<br>
<br>I think I mentioned in another thread that the primary failing of the immigration system is not the numbers of immigrants involved, but rather where those incomers are spread once they arrive in the UK. It’s not rocket science that if x thousand newly-arrived and processed immigrants are obliged to go no further into the country than the South-East, some sense of being overrun (real or imagined), or being overlooked for benefits and amenities in favour of "non-Britons" (ditto), and resultant tension is going to ensue.
I cannot believe it is beyond the wit of the UK government to identify specific areas further into the country than Kent where depopularisation has bitten, or has always been a problem, and for which employment of some description can be found for new arrivers (or, tying in with a previous comment, the tools can be put in place for them to effect self-employment if suitably resourceful).
Jeremy<br>(graysonscolumn)<br>
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Quote: from dave jay on 1:35 pm on June 10, 2005[br] I always listen to people like LM because I can remember speaking to white people in Zimbabwe 11 years ago who said that Mugabe was an evil dictator who was quickly ruining the country and murdering all of his political and tribal opponents. At the time they were decried as bitter losers .. time has proved them to be absolutely correct. Many of the farm and factory workers (900 ish) who were employed by them were killed and driven off the land and they themselves are now refugees in Australia.<br>
<br>Not quite a like-for-like comparison, as I don’t think Lolly’s Mate, for all his grievances, is suggesting London is really going to be lost forever to a by-stealth invasion of non-white immigrants. However, the Zimbabwe situation does demonstrate how a (relatively speaking) small dot on the horizon can explode into the most ghastly and oppressive of regimes.
The Weimar Republic were well aware of the NSDAP for some years but were seemingly content to regard it as little more as some lunatic fringe set-up of little consequence gaining barely 2% of the national vote at elections… which of course it was until the end of the 1920s, and the rest we know.
I think where I’m going with this is this; the two examples of the emergence of extreme, ghastly regimes listed above are not to be dismissed lightly, far from it; but I wouldn’t like to use either of them as reason enough to think Britain is in the early throes of going the same way, however much of an actual or perceived threat certain among us may think ourselves to be under.
Um, does that make much sense for midnight, Friday?
Jeremy<br>(graysonscolumn)<br>
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Quote: from Aranalde on 9:14 pm on June 10, 2005[br]Who knows what the world may be like in ten years time. Perhaps every racecourse will have accurately measured distances, regularly updated and published.  Perhaps the going might be measured by something more sophisticated than a man’s shoe or a pointy stick.
<br>Hihihihi, there’s political ideologies, and then there’s blind optimism! I’d like to see some foolproof way to stop horses charging the tape in jumps races, but I could live to 131 and not see that!
Jeremy<br>(graysonscolumn)<br>
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
The only safe guard there is against oppresive regimes and radical government is free elections, true democratic representation and a healthy respect for human life and values .. which is the thrust of my whole arguement here.
Bush and Blair’s war on the Brown People and their subsequent treatment of other human beings, is a cancer on the face of our civilisation.
Blair and the Europhiles also want to remove us, the people, from any proper political process which would hold them to count for their actions, by passing all major policies like immigration over to Europe. Who are you going to vote for when your vote means nothing?
Immigration is all about ‘Economic Growth’ and nothing else. They have been doing it in the States for years, it’s not a secret over there. I believe you have to understand and look at what ‘Unlimited Economic Growth’ means to understand the political end game and what is trying to be achieved, to understand immigration.
The depopulation lie is also quite annoying. If we are depopulated, by how many? when don’t you let anymore people in? when do you start chucking people out because you’ve got too many? Who decides all of these things and where do we get the answers.
Fat millionaires like Eddie Izzard don’t have the answers.
As ever, some interesting points, Dave. You seem to have a talent for starting debates.
Couldn’t agree more that free elections and true democratic representation are important. They don’t guarantee that oppressive regimes won’t emerge, but the more vigorous the democratic process, the less likely it is that people become disengaged from it, allowing extreme groups to take advantage.
Whilst I would share your distaste for the Iraq war, which it seems to me was a totally unfounded abuse of military power that should have led to the removal of both Bush and Blair, I don’t think its entirely accurate to characterise it as a ‘war on Brown people’. I do think the concept of a ‘war on terror’ is nonsensical and has allowed all sorts of revolting regimes around the world to crack down on any group they dislike.
I don’t quite go all the way with you on your European views. It can certainly be argued that the effect of a more Federal Europe would be to see more powers shared centrally. But I don’t think either Blair or Brown have a Federal Europe in mind. And I don’t think there is any evidence to suggest that they are deliberately setting out to remove us from the political process, so much as they are committed to closer integration in Europe. But again, we should be careful. There is evidence of significant disagreements between Blair and Brown on Europe on a number of issues.
Personally speaking, I would have less of a problem with a federal Europe, if they could find a way to make it accountable. Simply handing over federal powers to a group of Commissioners is dangerous. Europe must be made accountable to the people before there is any talk of deepening or widening the concept.
I don’t agree with your analysis of immigration. To state that immigration is all about economic growth is quite wrong. It isn’t something that Western governments can choose to allow or choose to prevent. The history of mankind is one of constant migration and immigration. People move to different countries based on individual decisions: out of fear of persecution, desire to better themselves, desire to live in a nicer environment and many other myriad decisions. You can’t stop the movement of peoples. You can limit it to a certain extent or you can make it easier, but you can’t stop it without, as I mentioned earlier, erecting ten foot high concrete walls all along the coast. And even then, it wouldn’t be completely effective.
I certainly wouldn’t be in favour of unlimited economic growth as an aim. I’m not too familiar with the immigration policies of the USA, but I would imagine they are faced with the same problem as many Western governments. It is inevitable that large numbers of people will want to migrate from the poorer parts of the world to the richer parts.
I’d be intrigued to learn more about this political endgame you mention. I wasn’t quite sure what you had in mind.
As for depopulation, again, I think you are assuming that the governments of Western countries have powers which they don’t possess. There are a hundred and one ways for people to arrive in this country. The logistics of attempting to regulate the movements of every single person in and out of the country would require governments to have the same sort of controls as the Soviet Union did on their population. So it isn’t a question of the government deciding that we are a little underpopulated here or a little overmanned there and adjusting the number of immigrants accordingly. People move from country to country and governments simply have to try and deal humanely with them when they arrive, whether that be to accept them as citizens or to return them to where they came from.
This is the boring mundane reality of the immigration system. Arguments about immigration tend to polarise into two equally impossible positions: to let no-one in or to let everyone in without any attempt to process them. The reality is that there will always be immigrants and migrants, legal and illegal. The key debate about immigration should be about administrative processes for managing population flows. But this is relatively boring politically. Far more fun for newspapers and politicians to call each other names and accuse each other of either wanting to keep everyone out or let everyone in.
Finally, I may have missed something with your reference to Mr Izzard. I always thought he was quite funny, but was not aware that he was a millionaire. But then, Mr Bush is a millionaire, so I don’t see why not.
Aranalde.
I will correct you on one thing.
Enoch Powell was right!
Cast your mind back to the early eighties, where the riots of Southall, Brixton and Tottenham, all highly populated imigrant areas. Enoch saw this happening as much as I can see it happening in Harrow town center every Friday and Saturday nights. Groups of Indian kids fighting with groups of black and white kids.
These are racist attacks against the minority. The now white minority!
It happens and it will only get worse.
<br>
Lollys Mate
Enoch Powell was not right. He predicted violence between the existing population and immigrants.
The violence you describe was a reaction to the actions of the Metropolitan police. I am not justifying the riots, but they were not symptomatic of tension between immigrants and the existing population. I live and work with people from many different backgrounds. At the time Enoch Powell was speaking, it was acceptable to be racist in public, on television, on the radio. It was acceptable to advertise bed and breakfast with signs that said ‘No blacks’. It was acceptable not to employ someone because they were not white. These things no longer exist. In every section of society, the overwhelming trend is towards integration, not conflict. Enoch Powell was wrong.
To suggest that white people are in the minority in this country is a step beyond absurdity. If, as you say, the whole of your area is regularly erupting in racial violence, what is your response to it? Do you deplore it? Do you do anything to mitigate its effects? I would also ask you something else. There are many tabloids in this country who would be only to happy to publish stories of racial violence and to focus on this aspect of our national life if there was even a hint of trouble. So where are these stories? Where is the national crisis? Could it possibly be that in fact there is no crisis? Could it also be that there are people out there who’s political agenda requires that they create a sense of racial tension, where none might otherwise exist.
There may well be people in this country, black or white, who see life in racial terms and who would welcome racial violence. These people are in the overwhelming minority. The only way to fight against it is to resist their attempts to divide people from each other, not to retreat into an attitude of mind that sees ‘white’ people as ‘us’ and everyone else as ‘them’.
Aranalde, Immigration is all about econimic growth and nothing else, you can read more about it
Paying particular attention to the words spoken by Alan Greenspan in 2000. He argues that ‘Uncapped Immigration’ controls inflation, what the people in charge want is an economic ‘Steady State’ with controlled but endless economic growth.
The whole question I am posing is not ‘How’ but ‘Why’ immigration.
My reference to Eddie Izzard is about his recent ‘history’ program called ‘mongrel nation’ where he argues in a well funded manner that colonisation of this country has been a good thing for Britain, over the years, starting off with Rome. This is of course rubbish and should be consigned to the ‘historical fiction’ folder, not put over as history which it quite clearly isn’t.
One could quite easily argue that … ‘One bright morning in the year of Our Lord 1499, explorer and soldier of God, Amerigo Vespucci landed on the shores of the American continent … ‘ Out of the estimated population of 25 million only 1 million would be left 150 years later .. but they did have some roads.
Sorry Dave but I think we may be talking at cross purposes. When people choose to travel to another country, they do it for personal reasons, not in response to economic theory. I think perhaps what you are saying is that the way governments deal with immigration is influenced by economics, although I think this is only partly true. The quote you mentioned is interesting and talks about the economic effect of immigration. But it does not demonstrate that the government’s approach to immigration is based entirely on economics.
Your question (not ‘how’ but ‘why’ immigration) is beside the point. Immigration and Migration are phenomena that exist regardless of what governments do about it. You cannot choose to have it or not to have it. The argument here is between unlimited immigration or regulated immigration, and how this affects the economy. I will repeat, governments cannot prevent immigration, but they can make an attempt at controlling it.
I had missed that particular programme, hence I wasn’t sure what you were talking about. But though you castigate Mr Izzard for his ‘historical fiction’, I have to say that your thesis is also rather a weak one. When the Europeans landed in the Americas, they proceeded to massacre, loot and torture the local population, and for good measure, brought with them a few European diseases. The occupation of the Spanish and the Portugese in the Americas was an unmitigated disaster for the native population. The Roman occupation of Britain did not result in the deaths of millions of Britons and did lead to the construction of much infrastructure which otherwise would have taken the Britons decades if not centuries to achieve.
But I see you are not really talking about Empires at all. Your real point here is that the current level of immigration amounts to a colonising of this country and can be compared to the Roman invasion.
I apologise if this is not your point, but if it is, I would have to say that this is utterly absurd, the sort of thing that even the BNP don’t put in their leaflets, because they know people would just laugh at it. This country is overwhelmingly white and the overwhelming majority of people who live here were born here. To suggest that a smaller group of immigrants is able to assimilate us into their culture is an absurd proposition. For one thing, immigrants come into this country from all sorts of backgrounds and countries, there is no one common thread linking them together. Furthermore, most of them have to start at the bottom of the economic scale, doing the most menial of jobs. To try and compare the arrival in this country of, say an immigrant from Somalia, who gets a job picking fruit and takes English at evening classes, with the armed invasion of the Romans, is an absurdity that even Mr Izzard wouldn’t credit.
But I see you are not really talking about Empires at all. Your real point here is that the current level of immigration  amounts to a colonising of this country and can be compared to the Roman invasion.
<br>Not at all .. I was refering to the earlier comments on this thread which talked about Empire being good. <br>
The Roman occupation of Britain did not result in the deaths of millions of Britons
It almost certainly did lead to the deaths of a high proportion of the local population.
I’m afraid the Alan Greenspan quotes do explain why immigration is used to control the economy and immigrants are exploited by big business. It’s not actually my opinion but a fact. Any government can stop or start immigration as they wish, any notion that they can’t is a myth.
Dave
The words ‘almost certainly’ are interesting in this context. Although, as I have already said, I am not seeking to defend any form of Empire, the Roman occupation of Britain did not lead to the deaths of a high proportion of the population of Britain, whereas the Spanish and Portugese occupation of the Americas did. However, in the absence of any figures to back up our arguments, the fact that this thread is not about Empire and the fact that neither of us think Empire is a good thing, we might as well leave the Romans and the Conquistadors for the moment.
It does appear that I owe you an apology. You were not attempting to compare current immigration with previous invasions of this country. I misinterpreted what you were trying to say, and for that I apologise.
You state that the contention that immigration is used to control the economy is not your opinion, but a fact. Perhaps we have different definitions of what constitutes a fact. You have quoted Alan Greenspan, giving his opinion on one way in which immigration affects the economy. You have not established a fact, you have used a quote.
You then go on to state that any government can stop or start immigration as they wish. Please explain how.
Immigration doesn’t start with governments, it starts with people. Thousands of people travel from one country to another. The government of the new country then decides whether to let them all in or to let some of them in, bearing in mind that a certain number will enter the country illegally anyway. There is not a government on earth that can start or stop immigration. They can only seek to control it. This, to me, seems logical. To my knowledge, only totalitarian states such as the Soviet Union ever came close to being able to control the flow of people in and out of its borders.
Razeen
Multi-culturalism is just part of the wider process of integration. Inevitably, over decades and centuries, people integrate. There is a continuous flow of new arrivals, of those who want to preserve their cultural identity and those who don’t. But in the long term, there is integration.
By the way I don’t believe that anyone in government can either prevent or encourage integration. For a politician to urge people to integrate or to maintain their cultural identity has no effect. People get on with their lives in their own way. But the long-term effect is integration.
You make a good point, Grasshopper.
I was thinking of exhortations from politicians and people like Trevor Phillips that immigrants and the children of immigrants should try harder to integrate. I think that sort of attempt at social engineering is doomed to fail.
But government can do a lot to remove the barriers to integration and to ensure that people are treated equally. As you rightly point out, much good work has been done in this regard in the last thirty years.
However, as long as the barriers to integration are removed, the process of integration itself should be left to people. Exhorting them to integrate and castigating multi-culturalism just causes resentment. Integration takes place quietly on a mundane level, over many years, through marriage, friendship and work.
Aranalde.
Open your eyes, come to London, or even better come and have a night out in Harrow.
Enoch Powell was not right. He predicted violence between the existing population and immigrants.
You said the above.
IT HAPPENS EVERY WEEKEND IN HARROW!!!!
 HELLO!!!!!!
 The "riots" (not violence you described) was totally to do with racism. Wether it be against police or us "milks", it was racist. Tell the late Sargent Blakeloks family that it was just a "violent act" when his head was placed on a stake by a known black thug!
Wake up and smell the roses. Sorry roses are a symbol of England. Thats not allowed.
A good friend of mine who works at the Guardian has it as official that in London english white people "are" a minority. 51%-49% are the "official" figures. In Harrow it’s even larger.
You went on to say………
It was acceptable to advertise bed and breakfast with signs that said ‘No blacks’. It was acceptable not to employ someone because they were not white. These things no longer exist. In every section of society, the overwhelming trend is towards integration, not conflict. Enoch Powell was wrong.
It is now a fact that if your white and English, you have no chance of getting into the London Met Police force because they only want ethnic police to come into the force. The same goes for the traditional London black cabbie. Several of my friends are black cab drivers, and they have all told me the same thing. Its easier to pass the knowledge if your from a ethnic origin because our Mayor Kon "wants more ethnic cab drivers". Now does that make him racist? These things do still exist.
What would you suggest I do about this problem of mine, without being racist.
As I said to The Davis One, I will get my kids through their education, because they are settled at the momment, and then I, Mrs, Miss and Master Lolly are OFF. I’m prepared to leave the buisness that I have built up by myself since I was 18 years young, just to be rid of people who are so liberal and totally P.C. and move to a bit of old fashioned Blighty.
You can call me racist or what you want.
I know what I like, I know what I want, and I will go and search for it for the sake of my beloved family.
"The only way to fight against it is to resist their attempts to divide people from each other, not to retreat into an attitude of mind that sees ‘white’ people as ‘us’ and everyone else as ‘them’. "
This one was my favorite.
Harrows Hindu planning cheif exec, Mr Navin Shah, has just agreed permission for a new Hindu "only" school to be built in my little Hamlet of Harrow Weald. Its on green belt area, near the place where the good old Gilbert and Sullivan played their stuff.  This is all fine. But why did "The Navster" refuse permision for a first and middle school, in an area of no use, right next to the newly built on R.A.F Stanmore base where there has been a hugh increase in population (some 350 new dwellings, of which most have gone to, yeah, you know who). Both will be paid for by us the tax payer.<br> Now I think thats not fair.<br> By all means have schools for all races and religions like Jewish schools, catholic schools and such. But why is allways projects against the locals.
These are as you put it…… Attempts to divide people from each other…. But you can only see it as one way!!!!
<br> ITS NOT!!!!!!
ITS TURNED A FULL CYCLE !! OPEN YOUR EYES AND SEE IT!!!
<br> <br>
(Edited by lollys mate at 7:42 pm on June 13, 2005)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.