Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

BBC News: Why have the white British left London?

page: 10
15
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Suspiria
The problem with the notion of keeping Britain pure, is that we've never been pure in the first place. We didn't all miraculously belch from the land like Tolkens Orcs.



"pure" is maybe not the right word- but the sentiment is fair enough, homogeneity will, long term, be a force for stability, we are heading down a very stupid path
edit on 12-3-2013 by Credenceskynyrd because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Suspiria
The problem with the notion of keeping Britain pure, is that we've never been pure in the first place. We didn't all miraculously belch from the land like Tolkens Orcs.


True, but the Persians (now Iran) had an even better start to life. Man and woman came from a rhubarb plant


source: www.art-arena.com... paragraph 9

No wonder they fell for islam. Now that means that if GB is filled with people from Iran, they will really be filling with relatives of rhubarb. I wonder, does that make anyone who eats tin of rhubarb a CANibal?



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by greatfriendbadfoe


True, but the Persians (now Iran) had an even better start to life. Man and woman came from a rhubarb plant


source: www.art-arena.com... paragraph 9

No wonder they fell for islam. Now that means that if GB is filled with people from Iran, they will really be filling with relatives of rhubarb. I wonder, does that make anyone who eats tin of rhubarb a CANibal?


Hah, what complete idiots! everyone knows man was magically created in a garden by a bloke with a beard, and woman was made out of his rib.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by CJCrawley

And still you provide no evidence.

Cool.

(It's still name-calling, by the way)


You don't understand. I don't need to provide evidence beyond pointing out what you've said yourself.






Where did I say it's a country for white people?


So it's not a country for white people? Then why did you make the point at all? What relevance does it have on a debate about who should live here?






Their ethnocultural group is Indian.

Just as Cliff Richard's ethnocultural group is white caucasian, even though he was born in India.


So what?





Again, you're just looking at where people were born and ignoring their ethnocultural groups.


Yes, oddly enough I am. And so is international visa law.

Is it your contention that "ethnocultural groups" shouldn't mix? Because your point appears not to be about immigration - you don't actually care about nationality, which is what immigration concerns - but about race.






I don't understand that.

Where did I say that?


You pointed to a figure that included white, christian immigrants and suggested that it was undesirable, that their presence was undesirable. But they are "ethnoculturally" almost identical to you. so presumably you don't mind them being here.

Which leads one to assume that you used the figure mendaciously, to exaggerate the level of immigration to which you do object.





Another insult. Thank you.

(You're good at this).


It's may be an insult. But it's factually correct.





You know very well what I'm saying.

For the benefit of people who just stumbled across this thread, this is what I actually said:

"When their population is as 'multicultural' as ours, I'll shut up.

Not because I agree, but at least mass immigration would be conducted on a more level playing field."

Not quite the same, is it?


So you want a more "level playing field" but you don't want a more level playing field? I literally have no idea what you mean. And as I've shown you mass immigration has taken place in Delhi. You just think it's okay because it's by other brown people who you assume are all the same.

It's also likely that as a successful economy India will indeed experience greater immigration from the west, in fact it already is.

Somehow I doubt you actually will shut up though.




Not quite the same as Indian people coming to London, is it?


No, because Wales is in the same nation as England for a start. But why are Indian people less desirable than Welsh people. Are they more criminal? Dishonest? Or do you just dislike the way they look or something?


If the majority of London's immigrants were from Wales, people like your good self would be squealing that it wasn't diverse enough.


How could you know that? Or is it just a vague straw man?






So, 17.7% of UK immigrants are from the Indian subcontinent.

Only 5.8% from Poland.

But the top country is India.


If you count long-term immigrants coming in now, as opposed to absolute numbers, the largest group is indeed from India (although as a percentage it has halved). But the majority are from Eastern Europe (which does not just include Poland, obviously).





new topics

top topics
 
15
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join