Rupert_Baehr Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 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... Not quite. Many of those who receive pensions overseas have them paid at the rate when the pension-holder moved overseas. No inflation (or other) increments. You don't provide them with health care, nor do you provide them with old-age care. Were you (or the government) to kick the foreigners out of the UK, how long do you think it would take for foreign countries to repatriate all the retired Brits? Most of them would be homeless. Where would you house them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 That's not law, just an entry in a dictionary... which I can't find now... Granted. There'll be a dictionary entry for "indigenous" and another one for "British" but I don't think referring to dictionaries is of much help in this argument. To put it another way; suppose we banned all use of the words "indigenous," "immigrant" and other such terms. The task to put before all those arguing about immigration (for or against!) would be: Describe, quantifiably, the qualifications that must be met in order for someone to have a right of abode in Britain. In other words, if you think it matters that you have English ancestry, specify how much of it. (Given that nobody can possibly have more than about 4-5,000 years of ancestry living in these islands, that's not unreasonable.) If it's to be based on years of presence, specify how many. And so on, and so forth. If there are some other factors, specify exactly what they are. Nick Griffin was asked to do this and demonstrably failed; but there are much better orators and debaters than Griffin. We may even have some on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John X Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 If you are referring to the BNP then was not there campaign totally derailed by the tory led national press. No it was derailed by them being a completely useless bunch of ***** who were completely out of their depth! John X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_words Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Not quite. Many of those who receive pensions overseas have them paid at the rate when the pension-holder moved overseas. No inflation (or other) increments. You don't provide them with health care, nor do you provide them with old-age care. Were you (or the government) to kick the foreigners out of the UK, how long do you think it would take for foreign countries to repatriate all the retired Brits? Most of them would be homeless. Where would you house them? Well, if your idea was to come into effect... if! I'd personally say, either come home or don't call it home and try to get citizenship where you've decided to be nationalised, if you can... Here's our current eligibility requirements, i'll take pot luck and guess most countries have something similar... http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/eligibility/naturalisation/standardrequirements/ Yes, in your predicted future world things would be changing, but not necessarily! As to those who came back, well, we'd have to deal it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
top4718 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Do you actually know what 'mass immigration' and 'unchecked immigration' mean. We have neither here in the UK. The fact that the BNP, Daily Mail and that bloke down your pubs says we do, does not change that. John X So how do great numbers and criminals pass through the stringent checks? IF A REFERENDUM WAS HELD TO STOP IMMIGRATION FORTHWITH WHAT WOULD THE MAJORITY ANSWER BE: YES OR NO????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_words Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Granted. There'll be a dictionary entry for "indigenous" and another one for "British" but I don't think referring to dictionaries is of much help in this argument. To put it another way; suppose we banned all use of the words "indigenous," "immigrant" and other such terms. The task to put before all those arguing about immigration (for or against!) would be: Describe, quantifiably, the qualifications that must be met in order for someone to have a right of abode in Britain. In other words, if you think it matters that you have English ancestry, specify how much of it. (Given that nobody can possibly have more than about 4-5,000 years of ancestry living in these islands, that's not unreasonable.) If it's to be based on years of presence, specify how many. And so on, and so forth. If there are some other factors, specify exactly what they are. Nick Griffin was asked to do this and demonstrably failed; but there are much better orators and debaters than Griffin. We may even have some on this forum. Personally I go with the law, and I personally class 'indigenous' as a modern term to mean national, as in British national. The truest sense of the word, then we all come from a primordial soup on a bit of land mass that has now formed into what we call the continent of Africa. (Other theories exist, but personally i'm not too sure on them, anyway I like the idea that we're all one!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_words Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 You don't provide them with health care, nor do you provide them with old-age care. Out of interest, where are you hailing from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinnwok Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Are you now saying immigrants can't go to public school either. You do know that they rely on the fees from overseas students to stay in business? John X No. I am saying they cannot come here to live forever or work here while studying. tourists are welcome to, as long as they leave at the end of there holiday. This should be the policy until unemployment is 10% of what it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 if we had a less open policy with our boarders, we would value those that are allowed to stay here much more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 If we had the same climate all over the world we'd all be the same colour... Therefore, climate is a major factor in determining what the indigenous people of any country are. Because the climate is poo here the indigenous people are white. If there was no more immigration and the current population would evolve to be all white. Perhaps the European indigenous population is more relevant though...Mmmm, this is getting complicated now...I don't think a person who is none white can ever be called part of the indigenous population. By the same rule I don't think a Red Headed white Englishman can ever claim to be an indigenous Nigerian.. This of course only stands while the climate is static over a million years or so. But arguments about the indigenous population always gets silly. The indigenous population are white. We are not, until recently anyway, a nation of immigrants. If immigration was a major factor over the ages we'd have a much larger immigrant population by now. Racial groups, on the whole, stick to their own racial groups to procreate. All the three main racial groups in the country are racist in regards to this because the majority of their community frown upon the mixing of races. I'm not saying that is right but that's how it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.