Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Racist Britain
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:15 pm Post subject:

Quote:

You must be talking about the British empire - that was forced multiculturalism and it went on for over 400 years. Britain is reaping what it sowed - if you tell an Indian to fight Britians wars in Burma and in North Africa and Italy because he is British then why get upset when his descendants actually want to 'come home'?

I think most British people will agree that 60 years after independence we no longer have any obligation to take in hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year from the subcontinent.

Quote:

The problem is this - you still want the right to emigrate but you don't want it for others who don't happen to be your race or nationality - I take it you live in South Korea

An absurd argument. You cannot compare temporary migrant workers on highly restrictive visas, who have no virtually no chance of gaining citizenship (because Koreans have no interest in becoming a 'multicultural society') to the hundreds of thousands who flock to the UK every year, and who go on to permanently settle there.

Quote:

What the most important crank in the machine is in your argument is that very little of Britian is 'multi cultural' even London which is one of the most 'multi-cultural' cities on the planet is still 60% white British. And then you have the rest of the country

So, you admit that London is almost half non-British, and even that can't be considered multi-cultural in your opinion. I suggest you look at the figures for the number of white children attending primary and secondary school in inner London. They are in the minority. Outer London is close behind. London will become a majority non-white city very soon, that is almost inevitable. The statistics on the percentage of children born to foreign mothers is even more revealing of the direction in which the country is going.

Quote:

Merseyside - 97.1% white and British
Burnley - 91% white and British
Greater Manchester - 89.9% white and British
Newcastle upon Tyne - 93% white and British
West Yorkshire - 88.6% white and British
West Midlands - 92% white and British
Essex - 96.8% white and British

Yes, many cities in the UK are overwhelmingly white, while others have experienced a huge change in their ethnic makeup, particularly in the last 10 years. Your figures are likely to grossly underestimate the true figures.

Quote:

Even cities and towns like Leicester, Croydon, Luton have still a white and British majority - so where is this 'enforced multiculturalism'?

In all of these places, which let's not forget were once 100% white, white people will soon be in the minority, and what's more, they were never given an option of whether they wanted to see such a massive change. If that's not enforced multiculturalism, I don't know what is.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:23 pm Post subject:

youtuber wrote:

I guess there is no solution in a market economy that allows mass immigration. Wages will continue to be driven down.

The trick is to find a profession that tightly regulates itself. High barrier to entry etc.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:24 pm Post subject:

Bog Roll wrote:

calicoe wrote:

Yeah, there is a very valid issue especially in European and British social democracies of newly arrived immigrants who suck out a lot of the generous benefits, without sharing any of the core values.

It is definitely a problem and threat to democracy.

And yeah, it's fun to talk to another New Yorker. Have a good Monday. Meh.

Calicoe - don't listen to bullshit.

If it wasn't for immigrants - we wouldn't have a health service. We begged the Philippines and Spain to sign a treaty in 2003 to recuit nurses from those countries. Its not that British nurses aren't being trained - its that most British nurses would rather work for BUPA for more money.

Another reason why we have immigrants because there is a lot of British people who like to sit on their fat arses draining the welfare state - we never hear about that though. If we didn't have immigrants there would be no fruit and vegetables on next days supermarket shelves - fact.

Something like 12-20% of our army is manned by immigrants - up until recently some of the Scottish regiments before amalgamation had something like 1/4 of immigrants in the ranks.

Immigrants who work and pay tax don't suck out of the system but a lot of home grown gobshites who aren't capable of doing a days work in a fit do. Its that simple.

Yes, it is true that many NHS workers are immigrants, and they are clearly a benefit to the country. Perhaps, if we paid our own doctors and nurses more we wouldn't need so many, but that is a different debate.

There are also many immigrants, and their descendants who engage in exactly the same behaviour you accuse the native Brits of. In fact, unemployment is much higher in the Pakistani and Somali community for example, but I guess that doesn't fit in with your rather simplistic argument.

But, as a recent House of Lords paper revealed mass immigration has brought negligible economic benefits to the country, and needs to be curtailed. If we need skilled migrants in certain sectors then so be it, but with 3 million unemployed the arguments in favour of this policy look very weak indeed.

youtuber

Joined: 13 Sep 2009

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:30 pm Post subject:

mises wrote:

youtuber wrote:

I guess there is no solution in a market economy that allows mass immigration. Wages will continue to be driven down.

The trick is to find a profession that tightly regulates itself. High barrier to entry etc.

Yup that makes sense. But we are talking about the masses here. And high-barrier jobs aren't available to the masses.

morrisonhotel

Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Location: Gyeonggi-do

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:30 am Post subject:

youtuber wrote:

I guess there is no solution in a market economy that allows mass immigration. Wages will continue to be driven down. Crying or Very sad

A 2007 study by UCL shows that immigration has actually increased wages across the board (for both immigrants and Brits) in the UK.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:28 am Post subject:

English Matt wrote:

[s. Canadian citizens are limited to Canada .

Only we are not. There are plenty of Canadians working in America and Mexico. And there are plenty more in many ESL destinations.

English Matt

Joined: 12 Oct 2008

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:43 am Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

English Matt wrote:

[s. Canadian citizens are limited to Canada .

Only we are not. There are plenty of Canadians working in America and Mexico. And there are plenty more in many ESL destinations.

The average Canadian without a degree, and without another country's passport (or the right to one) cannot just up and move to another country. What you are talking about is applying for and obtaining work permits, which are not accessible to just anyone (you need a degree and / or particular skills to qualify for these).

I'm not blind to the fact that there are Canadian EFL teachers....I didn't say that you guys live in a big prison, however you do not have equal access for all to other economies (unlike the EU). Having lived in Canada for 2 years I noted this as one of the biggest disadvantages to being Canadian (and one of the biggest injustices in the sham that is NAFTA), and definitely makes me grateful that the EU exists and that it allows for freedom of movement for labour - which is the condition that that proponent of capitalism and free markets, Adam Smith, considered essential if capitalism were not to spawn an inhumane economic system that exploits the work force (which is what has happened).

Last edited by English Matt on Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:09 am; edited 1 time in total

English Matt

Joined: 12 Oct 2008

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:00 am Post subject:

bigverne wrote:

Quote:

I think most British people will agree that 60 years after independence we no longer have any obligation to take in hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year from the subcontinent.

Quote:

The problem is this - you still want the right to emigrate but you don't want it for others who don't happen to be your race or nationality - I take it you live in South Korea

Quote:

Even cities and towns like Leicester, Croydon, Luton have still a white and British majority - so where is this 'enforced multiculturalism'?

So you're ok with immigrants if they are white then...because this seems to be your main concern in the above post. White Germans and French ok, but no to Koreans and Indians eh? Just trying to understand.

London is not almost half non-British. Bog Roll wrote 40% non-white. You don't need to be white to be British. Many were actually born in London or other parts of the UK......how is a non-white Brit, born 20 years before me, less British than I?

You seem to be quite bothered that places that were once 100% white are now 3 - 11% non-white (again it is this distinction, based on skin colour that you have focused on). Some of these non-white people are British. I am only British because I was born in Britain.....you are not genetically imprinted with British culture.

I don't intend to stay in Korea for very much longer, nor do a lot of immigrants currently in the UK (I'm thinking of the large number of Polish people who come for a couple of years before heading back home). However there are immigrants who want to stay and build a life, just as I will do after I leave Asia and head to Germany. If you want to stop immigration to the UK, I would suggest on the grounds of fairness that we should stop Brits moving to other countries. Where's the sense in that....why should I return to the UK when I don't want to live and work there, and a 'non-white' immigrant who wants to live and work there be forced to leave (or not allowed to come), just to make some BNP card carrying neanderthal feel better?

Good lord, I've just spent almost 2 years living in a monocultural country and haven't been so bored in my entire life and thank god that multicultural societies like the UK exist.

EDIT: I actually have to mention that I find the number of times you brought up race, and the manner in which you discussed it, in your post extremely disturbing.

Last edited by English Matt on Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:17 am; edited 1 time in total

Bog Roll

Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Location: JongnoGuru country. RIP mate.

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:34 am Post subject:

English Matt wrote:

Thank you Matt, excellent post.

Basically - enforced multiculturalism was imposed when we told people from all over the planet that they were British so they could fight our wars and dig the gold to keep our country rich. We have a historical,
moral obligation to these people. Its not like we have been 'letting everybody in' anyway - we screwed three million British citizens in Hong Kong in 1997 and we screwed the people of Monserrat in the same year
when a volcano eruption left them homeless. Big Verne and slideaways
mythical horror show of 'letting everybody in' has no relevance to reality. It was only this year that the present government begrudgingly allowed (via people power may I add) to let serving and ex serving members of the British Gurkha regiments to live in the UK - and thats how the UK remains over 90% white and British.

60 years is NOTHING in regards our moral recompense towards former members of the empire. You don't seem very grateful for the men who served and fought in the worlds largest volunteer army EVER ASSEMBLED IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET that saved us from Hitler, do you Big Verne?

The immigration story that should shock and shame the British is that 5.5 MILLION British citizens decide to live away from the UK - our country is the biggest contributor of immigration in the developed world.
We can't really start crying and bitching because we have 600000 Poles and a few people from Somalia on our doorstep. What we should ask ourselves is WHY people want to leave the UK. No doubt the racists will say 'because of black people building mosques down our high street where woolworths used to be' but thats not it at all. And if we really want to curb immigration to our shores should we stop British people from emigrating out of the UK? Its nice to have our cake and eat it but we also have no moral highground to complain about immigration when British people emigrate at the number that we do.

London has always been a multicultural city - A lot of suburbs of the East End during the Victorian and Edwardian times first language was Yiddish
and you always had Irish, African, West Indian, Scandinavian, Indian communities - London has always been multicultural - one in four of the white British population of London is of Irish descent. Hardly an Anglo Saxon populace.

Big Verne - what do you want for Britian in the future - I shudder to think what it is but I am sure you have a vision - tell us what it is?

morrisonhotel

Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Location: Gyeonggi-do

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:31 am Post subject:

Bog Roll wrote:

It was only this year that the present government begrudgingly allowed (via people power may I add) to let serving and ex serving members of the British Gurkha regiments to live in the UK - and thats how the UK remains over 90% white and British.

Amen to that.

In relative terms, Britain has a rather low percentage of immigrants as part of the national population in comparison to other western countries. I don't see any other western countries 'going to the dogs' because of immigration. It's moronic scaremongering when it comes to discussion of the negative impact immigration to the UK has on 'natives' (and that is all it is).

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:52 am Post subject:

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/

Quote:

The downside of diversity

A Harvard political scientist finds that diversity hurts civic life. What happens when a liberal scholar unearths an inconvenient truth?

IT HAS BECOME increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

"The extent of the effect is shocking," says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.

But even after statistically taking them all into account, the connection remained strong: Higher diversity meant lower social capital. In his findings, Putnam writes that those in more diverse communities tend to "distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television."

"People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to 'hunker down' -- that is, to pull in like a turtle," Putnam writes.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123986/Utah-South-Dakota-Best-Places-Lose-Wallet.aspx

If you want to undermine the voluntary, trusting elements of society then import hoards of foreigners.

The next step, after social capital is lost, is for the natives to become restless. (BNP). If their outrage is not pacified, the next step is violence.

So, what do you want. Do you want to punish whites with mass immigration? Ok, but eventually they'll form and join organizations like the BNP. Who will suffer from the BNP?

Ah, these emotionally broken beta-male leftists. Never able to think two steps ahead.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:01 am Post subject:

Quote:

That's not what I said at all. I merely pointed out the fact that communities that were once largely homogeneous have been transformed through mass immigration, and that people were never really consulted honestly about this. I never said anything about designing immigration policies on racial grounds.

Quote:

London is not almost half non-British. Bog Roll wrote 40% non-white. You don't need to be white to be British. Many were actually born in London or other parts of the UK......how is a non-white Brit, born 20 years before me, less British than I?

I meant to say indigeneous, in that 40% of the population is from an ethnic minority. This was in response to Bog Roll's claim that London was 'not that multicultural', clearly an absurd claim.

Quote:

You seem to be quite bothered that places that were once 100% white are now 3 - 11% non-white (again it is this distinction, based on skin colour that you have focused on). Some of these non-white people are British. I am only British because I was born in Britain.....you are not genetically imprinted with British culture.

Maybe not, but values and culture are passed down from generation to generation. There are a great many people, born in the UK, who do not consider themselves 'British'. If Bradford, becomes 50 - 60% Pakistani Muslim, dominated by Mosques, Madrassas and women in burkhas is that still, in any meaningful way, an English city? I would suggest not. Culture matters.

Quote:

If you want to stop immigration to the UK, I would suggest on the grounds of fairness that we should stop Brits moving to other countries. Where's the sense in that....why should I return to the UK when I don't want to live and work there, and a 'non-white' immigrant who wants to live and work there be forced to leave (or not allowed to come), just to make some BNP card carrying neanderthal feel better?

But, if you read what I said, I don't want to stop immigration, I want the system radically tightened up and numbers reduced. I never mentioned 'forcing' anyone to leave, so less of the tiresome strawmen arguments. How other countries design their immigration policies does not concern me a great deal; the UK's does.

Quote:

Good lord, I've just spent almost 2 years living in a monocultural country and haven't been so bored in my entire life and thank god that multicultural societies like the UK exist.

I never said that a little bit of multiculturalism was a bad thing, but uncontrolled, mass immigration, from often unassimilable cultures is a very foolish.

Bog Roll

Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Location: JongnoGuru country. RIP mate.

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:14 am Post subject:

bigverne wrote:

I meant to say indigeneous, in that 40% of the population is from an ethnic minority. This was in response to Bog Roll's claim that London was 'not that multicultural', clearly an absurd claim.

Where did I say that? I said - London is one of the most multi-cultural cities on the planet but it is still has a 60% (which is a majority? yes?) white-British population.

I think you have problems understanding simple English Big Verne - a bit
of a drawback for a patriot such as yourself. Cool

The vast majority of Britian - and I include the cities of Liverpool, Manchester, Sunderland, Newcastle, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Belfast, Glasgow, Edinburgh as well as small to medium sized towns are at least 85-99.8% white.

There is never going to be a time when the white man is going to be a minority in the UK - but keep reading your right wing bigot porn in the daily mail if thats what makes you happy.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:30 am Post subject:

Quote:

We have a historical, moral obligation to these people. Its not like we have been 'letting everybody in' anyway -

But we do not have a historical, moral obligation to their grandchildren or great-grandchildren. Unless you are stating that people from former colonies should continue to have the right to enter the UK regardless. We may not have been letting everyone in, but the last 10 years have seen the largest influx of immigrants on record.

Quote:

60 years is NOTHING in regards our moral recompense towards former members of the empire. You don't seem very grateful for the men who served and fought in the worlds largest volunteer army EVER ASSEMBLED IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET that saved us from Hitler, do you Big Verne?

Save me the Imperial guilt, its quite tiresome. We do not have a moral obligation, certainly in terms of free entry to the UK, to the great grandchildren of former colonial subjects.

Quote:

Its nice to have our cake and eat it but we also have no moral highground to complain about immigration when British people emigrate at the number that we do.

Again, different countries have to design their immigration policies to suit their own situations. Just because many Brits immigrate overseas every year, does not mean we have to have a lax immigration policy that lets in all and sundry because of the sins of the Raj.

Quote:

London has always been a multicultural city - A lot of suburbs of the East End during the Victorian and Edwardian times first language was Yiddish and you always had Irish, African, West Indian, Scandinavian, Indian communities - London has always been multicultural - one in four of the white British population of London is of Irish descent. Hardly an Anglo Saxon populace.

London has always been a multicultural city? Yes, there has been a foreign presence in London for quite some time, with a small Jewish minority in some parts of the East End and many Irish. However, pre-1950s London, in a 'multicultural' sense bears no relation to the London of today. It was an overwhelmingly white, British city relatively untouched by non-European immigration, which did not start in earnest until the 1950s, 1960s. The phrase 'London has always been multicultural' is an essentially meaningless slogan that attempts to rewrite the history of the city.

Quote:

Big Verne - what do you want for Britian in the future - I shudder to think what it is but I am sure you have a vision - tell us what it is?

I would like to see a stable, prosperous country, with a sense of shared identity and values. Unfortunately, that has been undermined by the pace of immigration over the last few decades. It needs to be curtailed, so that people can be given the chance to assimilate.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:33 am Post subject:

Bog Roll wrote:

bigverne wrote:

I meant to say indigeneous, in that 40% of the population is from an ethnic minority. This was in response to Bog Roll's claim that London was 'not that multicultural', clearly an absurd claim.

'Right wing bigot porn'....like debating with a 15 year old. I never said anything about the white man becoming a minority in the UK, but I suggest that your figures grossly understate the reality of demographics in the UK, particularly in England, which is most affected by mass immigration.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11 Next
Page 9 of 11

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe