Today we are told that Britain was built on immigration and "we are a mongrel race" (nice). This is used in the heavily politicised debate about contemporary immigration on the pro side.
But I'm sure I read somewhere that there was comparitively very little immigration over two thousand years and most of us are descended from ancient Britons (which I guess must make us Welsh) despite the fact that there has been a lot of inter marriage and so on with people who later arrived.

What do you think? Are we all totally diverse, or do you think we're a lot less diverse than some might say?

I'm an immigrant so I'm hardly in a position to criticise immigration to Britain. But I was listening to the radio last night on a phone in and a nurse came on and said the NHS is dying on its feet because of foreigners coming over to get free treatment. Something must be done to combat that.

i think either way it is a celebration of the cultures that flourish here.... the real question is whether there are problems, what those problems are, whether they are in fact real problems, and what the solutions should be..... (unless you specifically wanted to avoid all that)

British culture is what is today, it is a statement of fact. There is no doubt we have taken and shaped many things from other cultures, there is also no doubt that we have given lots to the world... we have given so much that things that might be 'British' are not simply British because they are now common everywhere. We should continue enriching our own culture without being shy of taking and modifying (or not) elements of other cultures. It is well known that the arches that i so love from English Gothic can find roots in arabia, and the Victorians made commendable attempts at glorifying Indian art and culture etc....

We live on a small island comprising just 1% of the world's population, hopefully that can put it in perspective.

I'm an immigrant so I'm hardly in a position to criticise immigration to Britain. But I was listening to the radio last night on a phone in and a nurse came on and said the NHS is dying on its feet because of foreigners coming over to get free treatment. Something must be done to combat that.

Immigration isn't killing the NHS at all. Far from it. If you actually look closely you'll see immigration actually SAVED the NHS. Doctors and dentists were all going private to get extra cash. The NHS couldn't afford them. What happened? They hired doctors from Eastern Europe and Asia! :)

I think Accura's getting at the health tourist scroungers - which is fair enough. I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the NHS is held up by foreign doctors, nurses, and porters.

My dad's been in psychiatry for around 30 years, working in all the London hospitals - and he obviously comes across all kinds of people in his job; from bankers in the City who became alcoholics living under Waterloo Bridge, to divorcees to foreign tourists etc. He tells some pretty shocking cases of abuses of the system - like an international student from Taiwan who came to study at UCL. He was admitted into hosp and interviewed by my dad who try to determine what was wrong with the guy. He basically said that he would commit suicide if he wouldn't be given a sex-change op, without even being diagnosed with depression - now, to me, that sounds like blackmail and is not on.

I don't know what happened to the guy but I hate thinking that we've become so spineless so as to render us incapable of saying piss off to these scroungers. Same goes for any tart, British or not, who tries to pull the same stunt in getting a boob job for free.

saying we've had little migration in the past few thousand years seems very dubious. personally, all of my friends or relatives have ancestors who have migrated to the uk within the past 150 years as everyone i went to school with had an irish surname, while at university my friends have irish, french, dutch, polish, fijian, arabic, kenyan, etc etc ancestary. i think finding a british person who can trace their family history back 2000 years without significant "foreign input" (if the documents were available) would be pretty much impossible. maybe it is possible in the more remote, inbred parts of wales...

there isn't a race of human beings that are British right?

I am part Italian

count me out

I'm an immigrant and am very pro immigration (no suprise there then).

I am however in favour of health checks on all immigrants mainly for TB and HIV.

Re historical immigration, people have come to the UK for hundreds of years, this has been in two ways and with each the country has gained new ideas and often better ways of doing things.

The first has been through the settling of emigre from the Jews in the 17th century, the hugonauts (excuse the spelling), etc. hell even the Bank of England was formed by Dutch settlers in the 17th Century.

The second was with the different Royal Families we have had and the different people they brought with them each time, from Handel with George the 1st and any one who has heard Zadoc the Priest will know what I mean to Prince Albert and the Crystal Palace etc.

This doesn't even mention all the people like me who have come here and provided skills, knowledge and employment (I employ 4 people).

To me the UK is the world, not just because it is an island but one which is very much linked with it's people and it's culture with so many other countries.

we want more immigration not less.

My Grandfather is Canadian and his family comes from Germany originally. My maternal grandmother is Irish.

So count me out as well.

I work on the front line with immigrants claiming UK benefits. When one hears of immigrants sponging off the system & taking the UK for a ride...take it from me..it is true.

my mum was born in canada.

I work on the front line with immigrants claiming UK benefits. When one hears of immigrants sponging off the system & taking the UK for a ride...take it from me..it is true.

I think you will find more British people do that than "foreigners".

You know why they have to claim benefits is because they are not allowed to work, by law.

Its just like single mothers who were sponging off the state by having lots of children.

...

I am however in favour of health checks on all immigrants mainly for TB and HIV.
.


what about asylum seekers?

Would you believe in employers insisting on tests for Briths citezans?

I think you will find more British people do that than "foreigners".
yes, people say "immigrants are sponging our health system" well brits do it too.
i know a lady who went to her GP and told him she was feeling suicidal and she goes to the gym free! and im sure a lot more people do that aswell :bash: the problem here i dont think is immigrants but a lack of checks for false cases

exercise is a great way to beat depression though.

i say leave them alone everyone deserves a chance

I think you will find more British people do that than "foreigners".
UK citizens have a right to claim benefits from the UK. If you think someone who has never contributed to the UK tax system has a right to claim UK benefits then I, and most other UK citizens , would disagree. :)

They can't get anything in which you need to pay a certain level of national insurance for. They have to have benefits as the government made it ILLEGAL for them to work. So obviously we can't let them starve to death.

So you think UK people should have to get a first job before they can get jobseekers allowance???

Today we are told that Britain was built on immigration and "we are a mongrel race" (nice). This is used in the heavily politicised debate about contemporary immigration on the pro side.
But I'm sure I read somewhere that there was comparitively very little immigration over two thousand years and most of us are descended from ancient Britons (which I guess must make us Welsh) despite the fact that there has been a lot of inter marriage and so on with people who later arrived.

What do you think? Are we all totally diverse, or do you think we're a lot less diverse than some might say?

I think as races go we are physiologically pretty diverse, which suggests we have quite a varied gene pool. We range from china-white redheads to swarthy near-Mediterraneans, and it is undeniable that Viking, Roman, Danish, Norman, Saxon and a host of other races have been thrown into the pot over the millennia. I wouldn't consider this "immigration" in the 21st Century sense though; Humans didn't inhabit these islands until relatively recently and so all I see Romans, Saxons, Vikings etc as is part of an ongoing process of settlement.

Races need isolation to form, and as places go the British Isles have been far from isolated so there have always been new genes being added to the pool. There has probably never been a "typical" British person physically. In fact, I don't think "English" or "British" qualify as races due to their inherant diversity... I see myself as being part of a broader Northern European race which even then ranges from mousy haired to ginger haired to corn blond haired... and from readily-tanning Germans and Scandinavians to deathly pale un-tannable Brits.

Some isolated Welsh vallies are acknowledged to contain fairly pure Pre-Roman stock, but in general people have moved around Britain and Ireland so readily for so long and so many settlers from overseas have arrived that nobody would ever be able to find out their roots (most likely because we are all "a bit of everything").

However, a Viking raping and pillaging is in a completely different context to a Kurd seeking asylum. The historic waves of migrants were invasions and self-sufficient whereas today society is very different and everyone is everyone elses responsibility. Therefore saying "oh well we're all a bunch of immigrants anyway" is a totally ludicrous "defence" for immigration today and ducks the issues posed.

I believe in letting in as many immigrants as the economy dictates, no more and no less. If the economy needs 1 millions immigrants this year then let them in, if we enter recession then just cater for Asylum cases and that's it.

I kind of agree tubeman. I certainly think there should be no ideological opposition to immigration. Anything in life that is based in rigid ideology usually doesn't reflect the real world.

I think everyone is aware of the racist and xenophobic undertones to this debate, no one complains about American merchant bankers, or Australians or the Irish, when they think about immigrants they think of someone with a different colour skin and that is what they object to. No one can possibly know whether there are too many immigrants in the country by their daily lives, as how can you tell if somone is an asylum seeker, economic migrant or british born the answer is you can't. People just see other people with a different colour skin.

i can say the british form somewhat a race, because i can distinguish them in most of the cases just by looking at them, because of their face. and yes i worked in the turism sector so i had dozens of foreigners to watch everyday

ill add that i couldnt distinguish the (white) germans, french, italians, because they were too much diverse, but i could for the british (as a whole), the russians and the spanishs, and a little the nederlanders.

do what you want with that.

i can say the british form somewhat a race, because i can distinguish them in most of the cases just by looking at them, because of their face. and yes i worked in the turism sector so i had dozens of foreigners to watch everyday

i know what you mean, how you can tell someone's nationality in an airport blah blah blah, but i don't think that is due to "racial characteristics". after all, the easiest nationality to spot is American, but america is one of the most racially diverse nations on the planet. the face thing has a lot to do with attitudes and how different people carry themselves. say two twins separated at birth, one went to live in the uk, and one went to live in the usa, i bet you could spot which one was american and which one was british, just by the look on their face.

I believe in letting in as many immigrants as the economy dictates, no more and no less.


If the economy needs 1 millions immigrants this year then let them in, if we enter recession then just cater for Asylum cases and that's it.

what if the recession is caused by a skills shortage?

maybe what i said is against your beliefs. but man in my job i saw more than 500.000 people in front of me (5-10000/day ), and i said in my post that its based on facial features only. i noticed several features that are specific.
but i CANT for other nations than UK, SPain, and russia

I think as races go we are physiologically pretty diverse, which suggests we have quite a varied gene pool. We range from china-white redheads to swarthy near-Mediterraneans, and it is undeniable that Viking, Roman, Danish, Norman, Saxon and a host of other races have been thrown into the pot over the millennia. I wouldn't consider this "immigration" in the 21st Century sense though; Humans didn't inhabit these islands until relatively recently and so all I see Romans, Saxons, Vikings etc as is part of an ongoing process of settlement.

Actually Native Britons are relatively racially homogenous, being an island Britain was for a long time sheltered from a lot of migration, there have been waves of settlers, but in comparison to most countries on the continent very little. Vikings, Saxons, Danes and Normans, are all derived from common ancestors and the difference between them was very little racially. The Roman's were a fairly small presence (look at the number of legions compared to a sizable population of 5-6 million Britons at the time. A sizable portion of Native Britons would have been amongst the population, there was no way the Germanic Migrations were large enough to displace the several million living here - and I don't just mean in SW England, Wales and North-West Scotland - but the term Keltoi was never a racial one, but a cultural one, and the differences are likely to have been relatively few. The biggest racial difference amongst the Native Population are those who have survived from a Pre-Celtic Iberian Stock - those descended from some Picts and some dark skinned Mediterranean Cornishmen who are closer to the Basques than to say the Dutch or Danish, but these are relatively small populations.

I'm certainly not against immigration and generally think it to be a good thing, but like you say I don't think anyone can say "Britain was built on immigration", its just trying to copy the Americans, but is completely inappropiate. "Britain" was built on nothing (not ideas, not kinship, not immigriation) but a trade deal and the end of the English (or more accurately Welsh Tudor) Dynasty and a shared hatred of Catholics.

what if the recession is caused by a skills shortage?

But "skills shortage" is a very vague term really, as there are a multitude of different skills.

A prime example is nursing as a skill shortage singular... We were short of nurses so advertised abroad, hence thousands of nurses from the Philippines, South Africa etc. Likewise teachers; we "import" teachers from Australia, New Zealand etc due to difficulties filling vacancies with British teachers. A London bus garage took on a couple of dozen Chinese drivers recently due to lack of job uptake.

Its not as if these things sneak up on us out of the blue... It becomes apparent we need to do something when vacancies are not filled in a particular sector, necessitating advertising abroad. No different to London Transport advertising in Barbados in the 1960's. These shortages are temporary and rectified quickly enough that it doesn't have a major economic impact. I'd be very surprised if a temporary lack of nurses or bus drivers would precipitate a full-scale recession.

ill add that i couldnt distinguish the (white) germans, french, italians, because they were too much diverse, but i could for the british (as a whole), the russians and the spanishs, and a little the nederlanders.

If you look at the countries you cannot distinguish, France, Italy and Germany, they have been a crossroads whereas the countries you can't are more isolated, Russia (by its terrain and size) and Iberia, the Netherlands and Britain are geographically in corners of the continent.

Immigration has benefitted Britain both culturally and economically. I'm proud that we take in so many and long may it continue. I live in a neighbourhood where almost no-one was born in Britain. My girlfriend, nearly all of my friends, my flatmates, most of my work colleagues, and most of my students are either immigrants themselves or the children of immigrants.

If you look at the countries you cannot distinguish, France, Italy and Germany, they have been a crossroads whereas the countries you can't are more isolated, Russia (by its terrain and size) and Iberia, the Netherlands and Britain are geographically in corners of the continent.As usual you are talking about the Dark Ages. In 2005 (the times lived by the rest of us....) you will find that Britain is a much more diverse country than, say, Italy.

I'm surprised as a forum dominated by economicists (and being pretty ignorant in this area myself) that there is an attitude to jobs being a finite thing, its not that there are a certain number of jobs and once on is taken by an immigrant that is one less for a "native". Jobs can be created, and immigration can be a good way of creating them, so long as you have the right sort of resourceful immigrant (by attitude not ethnic population).

The problem for European Countries and immigration, and the reason they are far less successful with immigration and society, is not because of numbers, its because they do not mix social security and immigration. In America its actually quite hard to find, even among Republicans people with anything like the attitude against immigration even amongst the more liberal elements in European Society. This is not because we are more xenophobic than Americans, but more because we allow social security and immigration, in America you are perfectly welcome whatever your colour but in return you are expected to work and be ambitious. Now this attitude might not work for other areas of American Society but here they are far more successful than we are, its at least worth examining what the Great Satan does in this department.

Actually Native Britons are relatively racially homogenous

What do you mean by "Native Briton"?

All British Whites who haven't been part of recent immigration, or people identifiable as being pre-Roman?

If you mean the first option then you only need to look at the variation in surname and place name origin in Britain to realise we are very much the sum of several parts, and if you mean the second then I very much doubt you'd find a "pure" one!

I refer you back to my point about the physiological variations present between ethnic White British. This is obviously the product of a diverse and well-mixed gene pool.

You don't see such variation within tribes in the Amazon or African tribes such as the Masai; they have been isolated and so are homogenous.

As usual you are talking about the Dark Ages. In 2005 (the times lived by the rest of us....) you will find that Britain is a much more diverse country than, say, Italy.

If you can't be bothered to read my post fully, then don't get involved at all, I was enjoying your long absence.

Anyway, pre-1945 (I'm not talking about recent immigration) descended population of Britain is far more racially homogenous than pre-1945 Italy.

I'm surprised as a forum dominated by economicists (and being pretty ignorant in this area myself) that there is an attitude to jobs being a finite thing, its not that there are a certain number of jobs and once on is taken by an immigrant that is one less for a "native". Jobs can be created, and immigration can be a good way of creating them, so long as you have the right sort of resourceful immigrant (by attitude not ethnic population).

The problem for European Countries and immigration, and the reason they are far less successful with immigration and society, is not because of numbers, its because they do not mix social security and immigration. In America its actually quite hard to find, even among Republicans people with anything like the attitude against immigration even amongst the more liberal elements in European Society. This is not because we are more xenophobic than Americans, but more because we allow social security and immigration, in America you are perfectly welcome whatever your colour but in return you are expected to work and be ambitious. Now this attitude might not work for other areas of American Society but here they are far more successful than we are, its at least worth examining what the Great Satan does in this department.

I think its easier to welcome immigrants when you don't feel like they're a drain on your taxpayers money. I think this is why Americans are less concerned about mass immigration, as the amount spent on welfare and public healthcare is per capita much less than Western Europe so immigrants aren't perceived as a burden.

Look at the focus in the UK; "sponging" benefits and free healthcare, coming over for HIV Combination therapy, getting given big council houses on a plate, its all about "abuses" of public money. In the states people seem to care more about cultural effects like the rise of the Spanish language.

All British Whites who haven't been part of recent immigration, or people identifiable as being pre-Roman?

Shall we say those with ancestory here more than pre-19th Century.

If you mean the first option then you only need to look at the variation in surname and place name origin in Britain to realise we are very much the sum of several parts, and if you mean the second then I very much doubt you'd find a "pure" one!

Quite obviously, I only argue that the different parts, are far more similar than you seem to be making out. Surname is often more cultural than racial and not particularly great to go on.

You don't see such variation within tribes in the Amazon or African tribes such as the Masai; they have been isolated and so are homogenous.

Well obviously not, but thats hardly comparing like for like, comparing us to a small homogenous tribe, than a comparable European Country like France, where there have been far more migratory influences than in Britian which due to its island status has been relatively isolated from immigration.

(Now when discussing ethnicity or race, its very easy to give the wrong impression. I'm not arguing that Britain is better off for having traditionally - we are no longer - being more racially homogenous than other countries, far from it, we are more susceptible to illnesses because of this, and we die younger than our continental counterparts, but I think the idea of a Viking and an Anglo-Saxon coming together isn't exactly a melting pot of ethnic variation in the same way that say the "Native French" have got far more of a mix in their genes than we do)

I think its easier to welcome immigrants when you don't feel like they're a drain on your taxpayers money. I think this is why Americans are less concerned about mass immigration, as the amount spent on welfare and public healthcare is per capita much less than Western Europe so immigrants aren't perceived as a burden.

Yes I think you are largely right, but Western Europeans with aging populations and a generally undynamic and stagnating population are going to have to get rid of a large part of our welfare regardless of immigration, so we might as well have immigration that compliments the economy.

America is also helped by other factors, as from the very beginning immigration played a big part in their country (although not as big as you might first assume, an American Identity had developed already from the War of 1812-14 when American's were largely still homogenous compared to what they would become. And a greater land resources of America also help, but America is not that much less crowded than say Ireland or Norway (about half in the first case, more crowded than Norway)

Look at the focus in the UK; "sponging" benefits and free healthcare, coming over for HIV Combination therapy, getting given big council houses on a plate, its all about "abuses" of public money.

Well this is it, its generally the white trash population in Europe that are more against immigration because they see it as immigrants taking what is their birthright - welfare benefits which they see as belonging to the white population to claim, the difference between non-white benefit claimants and all the non-white population by these people is quickly blurred in their primitive minds, forming racism, so they will equally see that well educated, well integrated Hindu Doctor as an equal threat to the white trashes state sponsored laziness. Whereas in America, an American will agree that welfare benefits are wrong for migrants to claim, they'll also have the attitude that its wrong for anyone migrant or otherwise to be claiming what they could otherwise be working for.

In the states people seem to care more about cultural effects like the rise of the Spanish language.

Considering the power of the Spanish Language in America, the indifference of Americans to this is remarkable.

But "skills shortage" is a very vague term really, as there are a multitude of different skills.

A prime example is nursing as a skill shortage singular... We were short of nurses so advertised abroad, hence thousands of nurses from the Philippines, South Africa etc. Likewise teachers; we "import" teachers from Australia, New Zealand etc due to difficulties filling vacancies with British teachers. A London bus garage took on a couple of dozen Chinese drivers recently due to lack of job uptake.

Its not as if these things sneak up on us out of the blue... It becomes apparent we need to do something when vacancies are not filled in a particular sector, necessitating advertising abroad. No different to London Transport advertising in Barbados in the 1960's. These shortages are temporary and rectified quickly enough that it doesn't have a major economic impact. I'd be very surprised if a temporary lack of nurses or bus drivers would precipitate a full-scale recession.

Ok I sort of wrote that backwards. My point was meant to be that immigration is to fill (as you yourself suggest) shortages of particular skills. Just because we enter a recession and have high unemployement overall does not necessarily mean, and I think it is very unlikely to mean, that there will be sufficent avaliable British/EEA jobseekers in every area of employment.

]As usual you are talking about the Dark Ages. In 2005 (the times lived by the rest of us....) you will find that Britain is a much more diverse country than, say, Italy.

If you can't be bothered to read my post fully, then don't get involved at all, I was enjoying your long absence.

Anyway, pre-1945 (I'm not talking about recent immigration) descended population of Britain is far more racially homogenous than pre-1945 Italy.Not only did I read your entire post - I quoted it too. This thread is about immigration and Britain. It was not started by you and you do not define the limits of the discussion. I will get involved whether you like it or not. Also I have not been absent - merely less active. Unfortunately I'm back on form and I fully intend to bash you and your silly opinions. :)

What is never mentioned as well is we need thousands and thousands of unskilled workers. Think about the fruit and vegetables in fields in Lincolnshire, all the food processing plants in the fens, the street sweepers, labourers and so on.

There are so many myths surrounding immigration.

Let me just share my two cents worth here...

As far as I am aware, Britain has never had any large scale immigration before 1945--those that did never came in large numbers. I think this is important as a lot of commentators are using the myth that there have been people streaming into the country since time began in order to support a position in which they support almost unrestricted immigration.
And how about this for provocative, but how important also that pretty much all of those that migrated here were white and (nominally) Christian? Yes the gene pool is relatively varied, but still most of our blood (unless your grandparents were immigrants themselves) is from those that have lived in these islands for thousands of years.

Immigration has been good for Britain in many respects, but I feel that many people want there to be some great undebateable concensus "immigration is good" and any debate will get you labelled as racist (Monkey!). There is a rational reason why people don't complain about American investment bankers living here--they will fit in with the culture and system of government, and they will contribute to the economy. Whereas many asylum seekers will find it harder to fit in and will require our support.
However, there is a flip side to this. Those to whom this country provides a safe haven will come to be grateful to this country, even when things aren't looking so good. Our economy goes down the tubes and American investment banker is on the next plane back to JFK. If we are to have immigrants we need them to be loyal to this country.

Pricemazda, you seem to be confusing immigration and asylum--only asylum seekers cannot work. And that is the point, because they are not immigrants yet, but asylum seekers. If their application is accepted then they can find work. That is why these things should be resolved in a couple of weeks--the Tories got slammed last election for proposing the more humane system in my opinion. You can't mess people around like the current system does.

2005 Britain is not 1885 America. Sadly we don't have 2 million square miles of virgin land to settle. How does a city like Manchester grow? It has Leeds on one side and Liverpool on the other. The only way to go is up, and if you're honest would you really want to live in a Hong Kong highrise?

But we still need immigration in some form, just not the disorganised mess we have now, where it is far too easy for the unscrupulous to exploit our goodwill, and too simple for people traffickers to make money.

The fact that the NHS needs foreign staff, and other areas of the economy require foreign workers does not mean we NEED immigration per se, but that the government have been useless at ensuring we have the people we need for the economy to keep going. It is turning an education and skills debate, which in many cases is the real issue, into an immigration one.

Not only did I read your entire post - I quoted it too. This thread is about immigration and Britain. It was not started by you and you do not define the limits of the discussion. I will get involved whether you like it or not. Also I have not been absent - merely less active. Unfortunately I'm back on form and I fully intend to bash you and your silly opinions.

If your so back on form, please correct my erroneous ways, by telling me how pre-1945 descended Britons are more racially diverse than their Italian Counterparts - which was what Tubeman was writing about, not the recent immigration that has taken place which we're all very well aware of.

What is never mentioned as well is we need thousands and thousands of unskilled workers. Think about the fruit and vegetables in fields in Lincolnshire, all the food processing plants in the fens, the street sweepers, labourers and so on.

There are so many myths surrounding immigration.

To continue from what I posted just after you posted this...there are plenty of unskilled people in Britain. As I said, it is disingenueous to say this is an immigration issue when it is actually a skills/jobs issue.

interesting conversation seeing as britain is not an immigrant nation like the US or canada.

interesting conversation seeing as britain is not an immigrant nation like the US or canada.It is now.

If your so back on form, please correct my erroneous ways, by telling me how pre-1945 descended Britons are more racially diverse than their Italian Counterparts - which was what Tubeman was writing about, not the recent immigration that has taken place which we're all very well aware of.And you have the hypocrisy to claim I don't read your posts? :|

What is never mentioned as well is we need thousands and thousands of unskilled workers. Think about the fruit and vegetables in fields in Lincolnshire, all the food processing plants in the fens, the street sweepers, labourers and so on.

Exactly. Lithuanians, Chinese, Poles and others doing these jobs, are not taking jobs away that are in demand from the "native population" they are doing the jobs that no-one here in their right mind would do, and certainly not as diligently. Like my Irish Labouring Ancestors they came here to do an unskilled job that no-one living here would want, and they do it well. Perhaps it is this ambition to get somewhere through hardwork, rather than watching Trisha in the mornings, creates a sort of envy at their self-reliance among our white chav population.

To continue from what I posted just after you posted this...there are plenty of unskilled people in Britain..


yes but they don't want the jobs.

Let me just share my two cents worth here...

As far as I am aware, Britain has never had any large scale immigration before 1945--those that did never came in large numbers.

there has been absolutely huge amounts of irish people moving to britain prior to 1945. so large that 25% of people classed as "white british" have irish roots. that is "large scale". while london has always had a large amount of migrant workers such as the Huguenots.

and i would think that everyone here is 99% descended from migrants who came after the picts or ancient cornish and welsh roamed the island.

And you have the hypocrisy to claim I don't read your posts?

For f*cks sake Monkey, are you doing this on purpose. Your an intelligent man, even if you hide it at times, so let me waste another few minutes of my life that I will never be able to reclaim again.

My post was in reply to Tubeman, saying that White Britons were generally quite racially mixed themselves, for a number of reasons which I stated I disagreed that in comparison with comparable countries in Europe, the white or indigenous population of Britain - being an island - has fewer and less varied sources than say France or Italy. You (Monkey) then replied to me, telling me that in 2005, Britain is more racially diverse than Italy, I stated that this was not what Tubeman's post was referring to.

So you either read my post and understood that I was comparing the pre-1945 (not the modern post-war population) of countries, and decided to deliberately pretend to misinterpret what I said, or you didn't read it and genuinely but incorrectly thought I was saying something else.

Let me just share my two cents worth here...

As far as I am aware, Britain has never had any large scale immigration before 1945--those that did never came in large numbers. So why was Soho a French speaking enclave for more than a century? Why are there still Italian parades through Clerkenwell? When do you think our Jewish population arrived? Why are streets in London named after Italian merchant communities? (eg Lombard Street). Why do famous City businesses have foreign sounding names (Rothschild, Schroders, Reuters, Kleinwort Benson etc...). Where did Sherlock Holmes smoke his opium? (ans: Limehouse Chinatown). What of the large Irish communities in Liverpool or London? How come several of my school classmates had Polish or Italian surnames??

The Empire Windrush kicked off a new scale of immigration and also the first significant non-white immigration. However immigration to Britain was hardly new - nor was it insignificant prior to 1945.

I did not confuse asylum and immigration, I was trying to make the point as well that in order to claim benefits you have to pay into the national insurance system, so these immigrants you talk of cannot claim until they work.

Why does an american merchant banker fit in more than a zimbabwean teacher? Most asylum seekers are professionals, as it is the professional classes that tend to be persecuted. Immigrants and asylum seekers have shown more tenacity than millions of 'native' britons by simpp[le fact they are prepared to leave everything they knew behind including extended family and friends lose support networks and go into an entirely alien society. These are people who have more entrepreneurial spirit than an awful lot of british people do, we should be welcoming them with open arms. You only have to look at other waves of immigration to this country, take the Hugeonots, they fled persecution in France. Most were skilled artisans, silk weavers and silver smiths, they laid the foundations for an awful lot of London's wealth. The next wave were east european jews, you only have to look at the likes of Alan Sugar and other jews in this country to realise how successful they are. Look at indians who arrived with nothing and started at the bottom of society, they soon developed the stereotype for owning corner shops, if they were white we would call them small businessmen, now what is the stereotype? Yep, doctors. So those who start at the bottom soon rise up and put the domestic population to shame. South Asians and East Asians outperform white kids at school. They are significant wealth generators.

So when we think of the east european jews they don't share our religion nor did they speak a word of english, they don't even have the same holidays as us. Religion isn't the problem is it? What you mean why we shouldn't let in people with a different colour skin. That my friend is racist, pure and simple.

How do you decide who we should let in then? My grandfather happened to come from a commonwealth country he didn't have any skills to offer and became a labourer, now maybe we shouldn't have let him in, but he came from canada and spoke english and was white, s o is that ok?

I know loads of aussies, kiwis and south africans who have overstayed their visas, i know a couple who have sham marriages. But no one notices that they are illegal immigrants, because they are white, that is why the debate is racist.

And you have the hypocrisy to claim I don't read your posts?

For f*cks sake Monkey, are you doing this on purpose. Your an intelligent man, even if you hide it at times, so let me waste another few minutes of my life that I will never be able to reclaim again.

My post was in reply to Tubeman, saying that White Britons were generally quite racially mixed themselves, for a number of reasons which I stated I disagreed that in comparison with comparable countries in Europe, the white or indigenous population of Britain - being an island - has fewer and less varied sources than say France or Italy. You (Monkey) then replied to me, telling me that in 2005, Britain is more racially diverse than Italy, I stated that this was not what Tubeman's post was referring to.

So you either read my post and understood that I was comparing the pre-1945 (not the modern post-war population) of countries, and decided to deliberately pretend to misinterpret what I said, or you didn't read it and genuinely but incorrectly thought I was saying something else.I'm doing it purpose. Losty. Don't you realise? I'm evil!! :devil:

Meanwhile take a chill pill - you'll burst a blood vessel if you're not careful.... ;) :laugh:

I know loads of aussies, kiwis and south africans who have overstayed their visas, i know a couple who have sham marriages. But no one notices that they are illegal immigrants, because they are white, that is why the debate is racist.

I agree, particularly with the final line, its not about immigration for a lot of people, - who confuse native born Asian and Blacks with "immigrants", as with the Bradford riots, when a lot of people came up with the solution of English Tests and other things that would be only a solution if those involved both white and asian had not been native born - and those who I have spoken to on immigration very quickly blur the line between immigrant, and ethnic minority. Despite all pretences otherwise, those who put immigration at the top of their agenda, are simply passing a message no more sophisticated than "I don't like them darkies".

As an aside I find the hostility to all things English, stronger amongst the Southern Hemisphere White Population living here, than any ethnic minority population.

To continue from what I posted just after you posted this...there are plenty of unskilled people in Britain. As I said, it is disingenueous to say this is an immigration issue when it is actually a skills/jobs issue.

I don't see the dole scroungers of sheffiled flocking to the lincolnshire fens. The local population would not touch those jobs with a barge pole even though they pay quite well, about £7 an hour which for linconlshire is pretty good. Its shitty work thats why no one wants to do it. You cannot force white britons to do jobs they don't want to. We have a free market, we have a globalised free market for goods and capital, immigration is a consequence of a successful economy. SHould we bus people from Manchester down to London and kick out all the immigrants so they Mancunians can do jobs they don't really want to do?

Seriously, from what I have read from you Man G, you have posted homophobic posts and been consistantly xenophobic, I might say you are standing on very dodgy ground.

Your the only person that has the ability to consistently wind me up, I normally don't rise to it with other people more than once, but you have a special knack for it.

How dare you call me xenophobic and racist! You have not even attempted to debate with me, as I have with you. All you have are little backbiting tags, like xenophobe or homophobe.

When did I say we shouldn't let people in because they aren't white? I was saying that there are reasons why it is harder for people to fit in than some others, but you saw there was an opportunity to misrepresent me and went for it.
Does this all stem from the fact that I once said that I didn't think gay couples should be allowed to adopt children? That is not homophobic, and if any of the moderators want to take it up with me I will be more than happy to defend myself and my views.

You never answered why you don't think gay people shouldn't adopt. Please answer, what do you think will happen to the children if they do adopt?

I think if you read what I have written over the last few pages I have engaged in debate with you.

I have consistantly addressed the issues in your posts, but yet you never address head on the issues i raise in mine.

Go back to post 54 and 57

Tehre are a whole load of fights happening on this thread. I've seen too many posts that i want to reply to for it to be worth repling to one.

what about asylum seekers?


A medical check is essential for asylum seekers, so as to work out the relevant treatment plan for them. There is no point sending someone with TB or HIV into a community where they are likely to pass diseases around.

I don't know if you know how many people in Zimbabwe or countries like it have TB or HIV, but they are as common as the cold is here, so the chances are when people come here from Zimbabwe they will be bringing diseases with them - we must know what they are so they can either be treated effectively.

If an economic migrant (people who as I have pointed out before I have no problems about coming over here) has TB or is HIV positive, then they must go back - we have the National Health Service not the International Health Service and can not treat the world.

If an economic migrant doesn't have those diseases then they are free to move to the UK and make a contribution.