No limits to immigration

[Robert]

I don't remember anyone talking about over-indulgent and lazy black parents of black boys, when the black boys were doing badly. That kind of language would have been deemed racist.Now that the liberal establishment have rigged things so that the white boys do badly, suddenly it's Ok to say this kind of thing. Well, well.

[Limehouse]

Good points Tom.

Bob - I wrote:

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.

But you reply by talking about MASS immigration and imperialist expansion.

Nobody in the regions you mentioned has been forced off their land by immigrants.

And 'my experience with schoolchildren' is not 'one thing' as you put it. It is the absolute truth as I live and breath it every working day. The poor attainment levels in education by an alarming number of white working class boys are not caused by immigrants but more often by over-indulgent and lazy parents who cannot be bothered to ensure their children get to school on time (if at all) and behave themselves when they are there.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Robert]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.

[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]

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.