No limits to immigration

[TomTomKent]

However that doesn’t alter the fact that there are now gangs of Polish thugs, some as young as ten, who are terrorising Llanelli. My greatest fear is that unless we crack down on those people who just come over here to carry on their lawless ways they will all end up being tarred with the same brush.

If you do not address the very real fears and problems that the people have you open the door to the extremists. Constantly trying to bully people into not expressing these points by calling them racist is exactly what the extremists want.

Except of courtse the complaint has been that these are not the people the discussion was about, nor can the criminal element be considered representative of the larger number, as your statements seemed to imply. If it was not your intention, at least understand how the impression was given, and bare in mind that most posters pointed out how the following could be taken at the time:

"A few facts, people who retire to Spain do not go begging, they do not run drugs rings, they do not traffic in human beings, they do not form organised crime gangs, they do not commit rape, murder, assault and robbery on a daily basis and they do not perform terrorist acts. They do not lie, cheat and steal from their hosts and defraud the host countries of millions of pounds.

What they do though is bring wealth, jobs and trade to the area they settle in."

Of course, some British criminals have indeed retired abroad, and, not all those who settle here do the acts you appear to attributing to them.

Or:

"I think not because you would find that your fear and loathing of certain people is far from 'irrational', but simply a device mechanism to keep you alive"

You of course claimed afterwards "What I'm pointing out is that there is a vast difference between the thousands of people who come to this country to abuse the hospitality and commit criminal acts and those people who want to retire peacefully in another country." Ignoring some key points:
1) Those you talked about retiring peacefully were FROM the UK, and those you described as criminal elements are those ENTERING the UK.
2) You made no reference at all at that point to the much higher proportion of immigrants who are not criminals.
3) It had been explained we were discussing those who entered the country to work, not those who are criminals.

All could have been well at the end of that post, when you suggested that you did not want the two groups confused, which unfortunately was exactly what some of your other posts proceded to do:

But you are the one who is trying to confuse issues here. You implied in a post about immigration that immigrants coming to this country are on a par with emigrants from this country going to Spain to retire.What I pointed out is whereas many immigrants come here for less than altruistic reasons, the overwhelming majority of emigrants just want to live a peaceful life in retirement without being a burden on the country that now hosts them.

"Many" not "a minority", not "some," but "many". After having already suggested that foreign people coming to this country are not, for some reason, the equals of those leaving our own nation.
And here suggesting our exported criminals are preferable to foreign criminals:

Again you are trying to confuse the issue. The Costa del Crime was formed by criminals from other countries flocking to Spain to use it as a safe haven. They did not go there to retire.

Then petty accussations:

Deportation is not a punishment. Seeing as you haven't said you agree with my proposal that all foreign criminals should be deported you must be in favour of keeping foreign criminals here to commit more crime! Well now we know where you stand.

Where you can apparently tell what BabyBird was thinking about a subject she had not commented on.
Then:
[quoute]"Actually a recent study showed that immigrants did not contribute significantly to the wealth of the country. Two main reasons were that a large percentage of wages earned was shipped out and the extra cost to our services outweighed the benefits."[/quote] Which is not entirely true, as you seem to have mistaken various groups as one big "migrant" pot, where as those we were actually discussing, those who come to the UK to work, on average pay more taxes, and ignores that even those who collect benefits pump money back into society through means of VAT.

Then, in a stroke of genius, you rebutted my comment about the east End of 1888 with:

"Quite right Tom Tom, it's all in our imagination. Remind me again about the robbers who murdered a police officer and injured 21 other people in 1909 in Tottenham, oh and wasn't there something about three police officers being murdered in Houndsditch in 1910, and of of course there was the jolly little get together in Sidney Street in 1911.

Oh these immigrant scamps! Robbing and murdering people on the streets of London all a bit of a laugh really wasn't it?"

Three points Bob: 1) You seem to be suggesting that the anti-semitic fears of 1888 were entirely justified, as all those immigrant scamps were busy killing people.
2) You seem to be suggesting these justified fears were based on murders that would not happen untill 11 years in the future.
3) Even if you recognise that a minority of immigrants were involved in the crimes, you have still justified a xenophobic fear of the entire immigrant community.

This is at complete odds with your claimed motive. And if taken at face value would appear to be xenophobic bordering on racism.


Then this:

"Say after me "All immigrants are good people -even the ones who rob, rape, murder and steal""

Except of course, nobody had said that Bob.

Now, let's compare and contrast:
"Wow so considering the immigrant population of this country is between 5% and 7% you're saying that 14% of crimes are committed by immigrants? Slightly top heavy wouldn't you say."
To which babybird comments "Don't let that affect your idea that our country would be crime free if only we sent the little blighters back to their countries of origin though would you?"
And you reply:
"Would you mind showing me exactly where I have said or even suggested that?
It's quite obvious you belong to the Limehouse/Caps school of discussion. Make up things then accuse the other person of saying them."
The answer being: When you said that immigrants were responsible for a top heavy proportion of crime. Now, about making things up, would that include suggesting others said that even criminal immigrants are nice?

Then, after having made a big point about not wanting criminals and hard working immigrants confused, you go and insinuate the two groups are one and the same:
Here’s some more peace loving immigrants, who have only come here to work hard for a better life for their families:
and again...
Here's some more:
and again...
This sort of thing does not endear immigrants to the British people. The overwhelming majority of these people are criminals who the government is not ejecting.

And again...
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1O6RcRKoR

Were just trying to provide a few crusts of bread.
And again...
What I - and thousands of others are asking - is why when we have our own home grown criminals do we insist on importing more?
Except of course, nobody had insisted any such thing...
Not forgetting:
Of course there will always be discrimination and in a lot of cases that is a good thing.

Anyway, remember how Bob didn't want hard working immigrants confused with criminals:
But don’t worry folks as soon as these criminals get here they all magically turn into law abiding hardworking people who only want to improve the country.
Sheesh. (Oh, and myself and others are STILL pointing out that this is at odds to your stated inentions at this point. If you truly did not want to imply that there is no difference between the criminal minority and the majority of immigrants, surely you can see why these statements are poorly worded? That is exactly what they imply.
"Another wonderful immigrant who came to this country to work – unfortunately he considered his work to be that of a murderer."
Then...
Nice to see all these immigrants working for the benefit of the country that is giving them jobs and money! Oh gosh they're not actually they're
stripping money out of our economy and sending it to theirs.
Once again suggesting people who enter the country as hard workers are exactly the same as the criminals.
Then...
Oh dear, a couple more imports that seem to have gone wrong – the scamps. They put on their application forms they wanted to work here – it’s a pity their work consisted of robbery, violence and burglary! Still never mind eh? I’m quite sure the LWL are pleased that more criminals have been successfully imported into Britain.
Which of course once again suggests that those who apply to enter the country for work will invariably turn to crime...
Once again we have allowed an odious person to remain in Britain. No doubt the LWL applaud the presence of this person in our country.
Which nobody had. Pointed out that even criminals are allowed due process and human rights perhaps, but applaud? Hmmm. What happened to no not misrepresenting people Bob?
And again, you suggest that those who are criminals are the same as those who wish to work...
Gosh what a surprise! After all they only wanted to go to France to work – they are apparently professional criminals.

[Bob Hinton]

Really?

There's no need to try so hard Little Tom Tom, I think many of us now know exactly where you stand.

Many thanks for re -posting my original writings - I think it's so important for the message to keep being spread.

Mind you congratulations for going a whole post without implying I am a racist bigot - you get a gold star for that one!

[Bob Hinton]

Greetings.

A couple more pictures of the Gambia trip.

The first one shows our truck at the school. The roads were so bad you needed something like that to get around.

The authorities were not too happy with us going out into the country, they had received millions in aid and very little if any made it's way out of politicians pockets. The roadblocks were to dissuade you from leaving the tourist areas. We found the best way was just to keep going and hope you didn't get a quick burst from an AK on the way past.

The van with the goat was photographed just after we had passed the roadblock. Apparently all livestock travels by roof rack.

The witchdoctors were always after any medicines they could get their hands on. The most popular being anti malaria drugs.

[Bob Hinton]

Greetings.

Banjul was the capital of Gambia, but even that didn't mean it was much better than the other towns. Here's a couple of shots of the city. Banjul was also the scene of one of the most fantastic coups pulled off by the SAS in 1981 where three men effectively took over an entire country by rescuing the Presidents family who had been taken hostage in a coup by Marxist rebels, all without firing a shot!

Prue is busy picking out some material for some shirts made by the seamstress on the right of the picture. I chose the material draped over her arm and a couple more really flashy designs. I've still got the shirts!

Prue also thought she would like to invent a new sport. After inventing the popular Python wrestling in Bali the previous year she thought the world was ready for crocodile tickling. The sport has an enthusiastic, if dwindling, group of supporters. The winner being the one who remains uneaten!

Every evening bang on four o' clock the monkeys used to come out of the jungle and on to the hotel balcony. They used to sit at the tables waiting to be fed, and hence were christened The Tea Time monkeys. Here I am being bested at rock, paper, scissors yet again. (I'm the one in the blue shirt)

[Bob Hinton]

Serious Message

When you travel to countries like Gambia you will have to take anti malaria tablets. These are very highly prized by the locals and are always trying to get hold of them. Some tourists, just before leaving, hand over their remaining tablets thinking they don't need them any more.

This is dangerous and several people have died doing what they think is a good deed. Apparently the malaria virus can live in your blood stream for several weeks after leaving a danger area. It is vital you always take the complete course of tablets, even after your return to the UK.

[The Good Michael]

Bob,

Nice pictures and memories. That malaria thing is nothing to mess with. I went to Ethiopia in our winter to avoid those problems. Ethiopia was much drier then and I didn't have to worry about shots before going. I didn't drive, but took local buses to get everywhere. I always carried pens, pencils, and notebooks to give to children. Had I had enough space, I would have carried a few dozen pair of football shoes too, for most if the people, even in adult leagues, wore dress shoes or went barefoot. Great people, and so giving.

The Gambia (as they call it) seems maybe worse off than Ethiopia.

Mike

[Bob Hinton]

And again...

Some time ago I posted that there will come a time when the indigenous population will be replaced by an immigrant population. This was generally poo pooed by LTT and cronies so figures released today make interesting reading.

In Manchester, Bradford, Leicester and Nottinghamshire white British primary pupils are in a minority. And in Luton just 30 per cent are classified as white British.

In some London boroughs, such as Newham, only 8 per cent of children up to the age of 11 are from a white British background.

And 26.5 per cent of primary pupils – 862,735 – are from an ethnic minority. When Labour took office in 1997, the total was 380,954. At secondary level, the total of ethnic minority children – 723,605 – has risen from 17.7 per cent to 22.2 per cent in five years.



So already we are seeing the indigenous population being replaced by mass immigration. In just over a decade the amount of immigrant children in our schools has more than doubled, why do some people think this is not going to continue?

[Errata]

Some time ago I posted that there will come a time when the indigenous population will be replaced by an immigrant population. This was generally poo pooed by LTT and cronies so figures released today make interesting reading.

But doesn't that happen all the time in world history? If my long ago British History courses serve, you guys started with Scotti, Anacotti, Picti, Celts, then there was a Saxon conquest, a Norman Conquest...

Now my family has not been in the US as long as some. I'm maybe a third generation American, probably only second generation. And as a quarter of my family is Eastern European, it has been pointed out to me that I am not "as" American as people who trace their family to the American revolution, or to the Mayflower. But there is almost no indigenous population left, compared to all the white people here. I think as a young country with some appalling behavior in our history, we differentiate between "American" and "Indigenous". We know we are a nation of immigrants. People give themselves prestige for knowing when their ancestors got off the boat.

The British have a lot more national history than we do, but you guys are an island nation. You are an immigrant nation too. You have to be. You didn't even get populated until there was a decent way to steer boats around. And while that was a very very long time ago, I have to say that as an American who does differentiate between citizen and indigene, you don't have a whole lot of indigene's left either. So new immigrants replacing old immigrants is nothing new. You guys have been doing that for millienia.

In a way we are lucky that we still have Native Americans around to sort of make those of us who are paying attention feel equally "fresh off the boat". I have never had the guts to mind new immigrants. Certainly they are taking quite a bit less than what our ancestors took. Or "their" ancestors took. My ancestors took a boat to New York 100 years ago, and no one wanted them either. There may be any number of times we might have regretted the words on the Statue of Liberty, but I know those words gave comfort to my grandparents when they sailed past, and I can't deny that to others now.

[babybird67]

the world belongs to everyone

complaints about immigration are often ill-founded and just a way to find a scapegoat for the ills of society.

[TomTomKent]

There is more to being British than skin colour, and skin colour is a poor way to judge levels of immigration or who can consider themselves the indiginous population. Any naturalised family has the right to consider themselves indiginous by virtue of establishment. It is perfectly possible to be considered English and Indiginous with out happening to be either white or an immigrant. You could be perfectly British but happen to have a different skin colour. Shocking I know. But those figures seem to have absolutely bugger all to do with immigration.

[Robert]

In a democracy, who comes in, and when, is a matter for the citizens.

[TomTomKent]

We must also quibble Bobs use of the phrase "being replaced by". A growing percentage of an expanding population does not mean anybody has been replaced. Nobody has been removed from the UK and swapped a non-white citizen. To claim there will be no White. British left, just because another section of society also has babies, and relationships cross racial boundries is somewhat silly. There are no fewer white british citizens. The number of white british is growing, even if other sectors also expand, and social expansion is rarely uniform.

"Replacement" is a flawed description. These are not podpeople.

[Limehouse]

Some time ago I posted that there will come a time when the indigenous population will be replaced by an immigrant population. This was generally poo pooed by LTT and cronies so figures released today make interesting reading.

In Manchester, Bradford, Leicester and Nottinghamshire white British primary pupils are in a minority. And in Luton just 30 per cent are classified as white British.

In some London boroughs, such as Newham, only 8 per cent of children up to the age of 11 are from a white British background.

And 26.5 per cent of primary pupils – 862,735 – are from an ethnic minority. When Labour took office in 1997, the total was 380,954. At secondary level, the total of ethnic minority children – 723,605 – has risen from 17.7 per cent to 22.2 per cent in five years.



So already we are seeing the indigenous population being replaced by mass immigration. In just over a decade the amount of immigrant children in our schools has more than doubled, why do some people think this is not going to continue?

There are several points of contention here - some of which have already been pointed out by Tom.

1. Non-white skin colour does not always equal non-indigenous.
2. White skin colour does not always equal indigenous.

Example - in one of my classes there are three back students who are British and whose parents and grandparents and even great grandparents were British. That almost equals my amount of Britishness.

In the same class five white students are Polish - who arrived in this country within the last five years.

Looking at an ethnic mix in a particular region does not give us a balanced understanding of immigration. Often - immigrants will flood to a particular area because there is work of the type they can do/wish to do/other people refuse to do and they will live close to their work. In other cases they will go to that region because people from their own country/village are already there and they know they will be able to communicate in their own language and culture. Usually they arrive in a region that is already being rejected by the local population as they attain social mobility and move out to more attractive suburbs.

If we require a clear example of this we need only look at the east end of London in the 1880s. Jewish people started to arrive from Poland and other parts of eastern Europe in dribs and drabs during the 1860s and 1870s but that flow increased in the 1880s and we know they occupied streets around Whitechapel and the surrounding 'villages'. Gradually - due to a number of factors - including increased prosperity and better transport - the Jewish people moved further north east into the outer fringes of London close to the Essex borders (Chingford and Ilford etc) and the areas of east London previously populated mostly by Jews saw a new influx of immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh. Now - did the Jews and Pakistanis 'replace' the indigenous poplulation in those areas? No - the indigenous people had attained prosperity at a earlier stage and moved to 'better' suburbs - just as the Jewish people did later.

I would also like to take a little space here to dispel another myth. It is often said that immigrant children in schools 'hold back' the other pupils because of their poor grasp of the English language. This is not the case. Children from most immigrant backgrounds are often already multi-lingual. This is especially true of those from regions such as Iraq and Iran where people have to learn several 'local' languages to communicate effectively in their own countries. They arrive willing and eager to learn English - often they already have a smattering of the language. They also behave well and are respecful towards the teacher and the education process. They have a high work ethic and within a few years a high proportion of immigrant children and young people out-perform the indigenous popluation in their attainment - even performing better in English exams than their indigenous peers. This is the absolute truth and I have seen it happening myself over a period of many years.

Immigration is good for a country. It creates a diverse and rich culture and produces often outstanding examples of literature and art - not to mention entrepreneurship that has a positive impact on the host country.

[Bob Hinton]

Immigration is good for a country. It creates a diverse and rich culture and produces often outstanding examples of literature and art - not to mention entrepreneurship that has a positive impact on the host country.

So let me get this straight, you are saying that the mass immigration to North America in the 18th and 19th centuries by Europeans was a good thing for the American Indians who were already there?

I'm sure you can understand the confusion because the same people who castigate the Europeans for practically wiping out the American Indians and taking their land are often the same people who then state that mass immigration is a good thing for a country.

Of course we always get the same old hoary chestnut about Britain always being a land of immigration etc. That is nonsense. Over the centuries Britain has been invaded by various peoples from across the seas. I’m quite sure if you asked the people of Yorkshire if they objected to the Vikings killing and plundering they, the ones that were left alive, would have said ‘Yes’. But even with these invasions, we very rarely got areas where the invaders took over complete sections of the country and excluded the natives, after a while they integrated with the local population. Otherwise we would today have areas of Britain where everyone spoke Danish, or German or French.

Today we are having major cities in Britain which are completely dominated by newly arrived immigrants. They have no interest in integrating, they insist on their own religions, their own schools, their own language and even their own government. They insist on laws being made to force the indigenous population to respect their way of life whilst at the same time refusing to respect ours. They insist on everything being done to accommodate them. The taxpayer is forced to spend millions of pounds writing everything in hundreds of different languages, and we are seeing incidences where our way of life is being completely subverted. For example in Britain we have a long history of democracy where everyone is allowed to vote in the politicians they want to represent them. Now we have immigrant councillors refusing to speak English at council meetings and insisting they are only there to represent ‘their’ people – meaning the immigrants.

Now do you honestly think that that is going to foster good relations between the different sections of society?

The problem we have is not immigration, but mass, unrestricted immigration into a country that quite frankly cannot afford it. The Labour government over the time they were in office shouted down anyone who dared raise this point and labelled them 'racists' to stifle any debate. They also used the very same arguments that have been put forward on these boards, however even they are beginning to admit that they got it wrong.

Your experience with schoolchildren is one thing - mine is entirely different. I visit schools on a regular basis, and a complaint I often hear is the impossibility of trying to teach children where the majority do not speak or understand English. I honestly have no idea of how they cope – but perhaps the appalling standards of education in this country now shows that they are not.

[TomTomKent]

So are the figures down to immigration or natural growth? There has been a natural growth in most sectors, with two asian sectors of the population, those of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin growing primarily from natural expansion.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/PEEG-statistical-bulletin.pdf

Although net immigration is up, it is far from the overwhelming picture that Bob is trying to paint. You see Bob is only looking at half a picture. He is looking at those entering the country. He has not considered our emigration figures:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=260

Had traffic only been in one direction, then obviously the percentages would be lower, the slices of the pie thinner. But White British citizens have been vacating the country at an increase rate over the decade in question, with 1999 being a dip in the trend. So although net immigration has been climbing, we have also seen more and more British folks making the same moves to other nations.

We also have to take in account internal migration: Those who have moved from one part of the country to another. Although the rates have doubled in some parts of the country they have remained consistent in London. Why? Because six hundred thousand people who were not white moved out of london last year, while five hundred thousand moved from abroad to London. About a million or so non white people entered the rest of the country from abroad. So roughly a third of this "overwhelming" wave of NWB citizens came from that distant and terrifying land known as...LONDON.

As with all statistics they are only as scary as the spin you choose to put on them.

Remember, that big scary number, one in six of the population is not entirely reliant on immigration. It is for anybody who happens to fill out an official form and ticks any box other than "White British". Immigrant or not.