reply to post by JuniorDisco
1 Look it up in a dictionary
2 Reread the thread. I have been specific and clear about why you are a bigot.
And still you provide no evidence.
(It's still name-calling, by the way)
Your assertion that Britain is magically a country for "white" people.
Where did I say it's a country for
I said it's a white country, because most of the population are white.
If most of the population were not white, then it would no longer be a white country.
Do you see how it works?
And your confusion and twisting of facts relating to immigration, culture and ethnicity to incorrectly shore up your viewpoint.
A vague insult without anything to back it up.
If they aren't Indian nationals they are not Indian.
Their ethnocultural group is Indian.
Just as Cliff Richard's ethnocultural group is white caucasian, even though he was born in India.
You think "Indian" people can "return home" even if they are born in Leeds, and that brown people living in Delhi are locals even if Bangladeshi
because... well, they all look the same to you.
Again, you're just looking at where people were born and ignoring their ethnocultural groups.
All these westerners rushing off to get visas to work in India....pound to a penny the great majority are ethically Indian.
Birds of a feather.....
At the same time you want to think of people culturally almost identical to you - a Romanian catholic, for example - as massively different
because it suits you to do so.
I don't understand that.
Where did I say that?
There is no consistency to your line of thinking because it is based on prejudice.
Another insult. Thank you.
(You're good at this).
So you're against mass immigration but you would prefer mass immigration to occur in Delhi.
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?
You misrepresent people and then launch an attack based upon that.
I think we've got your measure now.
You're ignoring the mass immigration of Bangladeshi people in Delhi
Not quite the same as Indian people coming to London, is it?
If the majority of London's immigrants were from Wales, people like your good self would be squealing that it wasn't diverse enough.
But it's ok for the same sort of thing to happen in India - why?
You said that as long as someone was ethniically or culturally Punjabi or Hindi they couldn't be considered an immigrant to Delhi.
Obviously they are immigrants, in the same way as Welsh people moving to London would be immigrants.
Exactly in the same way.
Yes, 11.9 per cent is a majority.
You said that the "vast majority" of immigrants to the UK were from Eastern Europe.
Not according to the Guardian.
(The article was from last year, so quite recent.)
Just to remind you:
The International Passenger Survey estimates shows India as the top country for people coming to the UK with 11.9% of all immigrants. It's
followed by Pakistan, (5.8%), Poland (5.4%), Australia (5.2%) and China (5.2%).
So, 17.7% of UK immigrants are from the Indian subcontinent.
Only 5.8% from Poland.
But the top country is India.