John X Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 So the amount of East European criminals have entered legally have they???? Wake up you fool. No there wasn't. John X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_words Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Sorry - system crash. (Hence the slow reply) I'm not so sure that we all do know what 'indigenous' means and given that there is no concise definition, it's a pretty vague term. If you say indigenous means 'born here' then is a Chinese child (with Han parents who happened to be passing through the UK when the child was born) an indigenous Brit? - Of course not. There was a colony of Romans - people who kept themselves separate from the population - living in London until the 9th century. Julius Caesar came to England in 55BC, so they had been here for a while. Are they 'Indigenous Brits'? - If not, why not? The Angles and the Saxons came later. They were immigrants. - Hardly 'Indigenous Brits'. - Or were they? Consider two very different people: 1. Sir Trevor MacDonald. A gentleman of the dark-skinned persuasion. He probably wasn't born in the UK, but he does speak pretty good English, he has lived here for very many years and I - for one - have no problem in identifying him as 'a Brit'. 2. One of the pasty-skinned pudgy chavettes interviewed on TV last week during the riots. She was a Brit. Really? - I've been speaking English for more than 60 years, and I reckon I'm fairly fluent. I could understand about one out of every three words she said. Is she an indigenous Brit? If you want to use the term 'indigenous Brit' in an argument - and if the argument is to be taken seriously - then I suggest it would be a very good idea to define concisely the term 'indigenous Brit' before you start. You did not do so. Both are probably British nationals. I believe old Trev the star has British national status, the other, I don't even know who you're referring to... But just because they talk strangely to you doesn't actually indicate whether their a British national or not. To me an indigenous Brit conforms to British law! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Nationality_Act_1981 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
top4718 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 No there wasn't. John X Avoid it all you like mate, we both know the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_words Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 If there was a referendum in this country to end immigration, yes or no, what do you think the majority answer would be. I believe many would vote to stop it, but in reality it'd probably be to add stiff restrictions, just like many other countries do already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 ... Answer me one question: If there was a referendum in this country to end immigration, yes or no, what do you think the majority answer would be. I'll answer yours if you answer mine. If 'ending immigration' meant that the UK had to accept (and support) all the Brits who have emigrated to other EU countries, how would you pay for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_words Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 If 'ending immigration' meant that the UK had to accept (and support) all the Brits who have emigrated to other EU countries, how would you pay for that? How does that compare? In the case of those on pensions, we already do. The rest will be paying their own way and I doubt will be claiming benefits... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
top4718 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 I believe many would vote to stop it, but in reality it'd probably be to add stiff restrictions, just like many other countries do already. I said a yes or no vote, not fudging around the edgings offering the rhetoric of "stiff restrictions" I mean stopping it altogether. The answer would be a resounding YES, you can dress it up in all the rascist claims you want but it would still be a YES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_words Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 I said a yes or no vote, not fudging around the edgings offering the rhetoric of "stiff restrictions" I mean stopping it altogether. The answer would be a resounding YES, you can dress it up in all the rascist claims you want but it would still be a YES. But no government would ever enact such a strategy, we're no North Korea, because that's what your suggesting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 I'm not surprised you chose to take that path. Not even a little bit. If it's possible to derive another meaning, you're sure to find it. I certainly was not saying that and you damn well know it! If that isn't what you meant, then you were yourself being preposterous, since that is palpably what this thread has proved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Total Chaos Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 I guess that's why I got banned last week, but don't moan about it or the moderators like you and your cohort. Really, i thought you was immortal Boyfriday.Haha thats just made my day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.