UKIP Immigration and Asylum Policy

[aliceBB]

So what you're saying is Jews must be in favour of maintaining the record levels of immigration to the UK we have seen in the past decade and a half, otherwise they leave themselves open to accusations of fascist sympathies (from people like you who are intolerant of their opinion)? I've never read anything so ridiculous.

 

You use language like a blunt chainsaw. (And no, that isn't a compliment). I am saying nothing of the sort.

 

We were all immigrants once, including Mr Shaw's ancestors. How 'pure' does someone's ancestry need to be, how far back must they be able to trace their family, for you to accept their right to live here?

 

Perhaps it is simply that I have seen so much of Mr Shaw's spouting and pontificating on another forum that I find his use of this forum as a platform for his UKIP candidacy, tiresome in the extreme.

[maxmaximus]

You use language like a blunt chainsaw. I am say nothing of the sort.

 

We were all immigrants once, including Mr Shaw's ancestors. How pure does someone's ancestry need to be, how far back must they be able to trace their family, for you to accept their right to live here?

 

Perhaps it is simply that I have seen so much of Mr Shaw's spouting and pontificating on another forum that I find his use of this forum as a platform for his UKIP candidacy, tiresome in the extreme.

 

An immigrant is a person who moves to live permanently in a foreign country so the majority of people aren’t immigrants.

[aliceBB]

An immigrant is a person who moves to live permanently in a foreign country so the majority of people aren’t immigrants.

The vast majority of people who live in Britain can be shown to be immigrants if you trace their history back far enough.

 

I repeat : how long does someone's family have to have been born and lived in this country before they can be classed as British and acquire the right to reside here permanently? Pre Roman colonisation? Pre-Norman conquest? Victorian times? Or just longer than 10 years?

 

It's starting to look very arbitrary...

 

Please do not misunderstand me : there is nothing wrong in principle with a debate about how many people this country can support. The problem is that in practice such debates always end up sounding like a meeting of grumpy old Daily Mail reading gits who behave like rats in a trap when actually, they aren't in a trap. There is always a wider context to such issues as immigration, but the UKIP brigade cannot see it. They learn nothing from history and are irrational and selfish to the core, whilst trying to defend their smallmindedness by whipping up fearfulness. This thread is indeed a disgrace.

[Halibut]

The vast majority of people who live in Britain can be shown to be immigrants if you trace their history back far enough.

 

I repeat : how long does someone's family have to have been born and lived in this country before they can be classed as British and acquire the right to reside here permanently? Pre Roman colonisation? Pre-Norman conquest? Victorian times? Or just longer than 10 years?

 

It's starting to look very arbitrary...

 

Please do not misunderstand me : there is nothing wrong in principle with a debate about how many people this island can support. The problem is that in practice such debates always end up sounding like a meeting of grumpy old Daily Mail reading gits who behave like rats in a trap when actually, they aren't in a trap. There is always a wider context to such issues as immigration, but the UKIP brigade cannot see it. They learn nothing from history and are irrational and selfish to the core, whilst trying to defend their smallmindedness by generating fearfulness. This thread is indeed a disgrace.

 

Good question Alice. I'd be particularly interested to hear southcoasts response to this as he's on record on this Forum as saying that anyone who isn't white cannot be British.

Despite numerous polite requests from me he has been unable or unwilling to provide any explanation for this bizarre point of view.

[southcoast]

And in your case a fetish for National Socialism.

 

Of course.

[aliceBB]

Good question Alice. I'd be particularly interested to hear southcoasts response to this as he's on record on this Forum as saying that anyone who isn't white cannot be British.

Despite numerous polite requests from me he has been unable or unwilling to provide any explanation for this bizarre point of view.

Probably because there is none! (Other than the normal irrationality of BNP sympathisers).

[maxmaximus]

The vast majority of people who live in Britain can be shown to be immigrants if you trace their history back far enough.

 

I repeat : how long does someone's family have to have been born and lived in this country before they can be classed as British and acquire the right to reside here permanently? Pre Roman colonisation? Pre-Norman conquest? Victorian times? Or just longer than 10 years?

 

It's starting to look very arbitrary...

 

Please do not misunderstand me : there is nothing wrong in principle with a debate about how many people this island can support. The problem is that in practice such debates always end up sounding like a meeting of grumpy old Daily Mail reading gits who behave like rats in a trap when actually, they aren't in a trap. There is always a wider context to such issues as immigration, but the UKIP brigade cannot see it. They learn nothing from history and are irrational and selfish to the core, whilst trying to defend their smallmindedness by generating fearfulness. This thread is indeed a disgrace.

 

That's the old idea that we are made up from various conquests and influxes of immigrants, but new DNA evidence tells a different story, the vast majority of British people are the descendants of the humans that were here over 10,000 years ago and humans have lived in what is now England for over 800,000 years.. The area that Sheffield now occupies has been inhabited for over 12,800 years, long before this island became three countries,

The country of England was formed by the union of the kingdoms of Northumbria and Wessex at Dore near Sheffield in 890 AD, so only the people that arrived after that are the descendants of immigrants.

[Halibut]

Of course.

 

So, do you have any view as to how many generations a family has to have lived here before they can call themselves British?

 

Or is it just a case of anyone who isn't white can't be?

 

P.S. How white does white have to be before it's Ok with you. Is my wife's son British? His grandad was a black man and his dad is mixed race.

 

---------- Post added 23-01-2013 at 23:03 ----------

 

That's the old idea that we are made up from various conquests and influxes of immigrants, but new DNA evidence tells a different story, the vast majority of British people are the descendants of the humans that were here over 10,000 years ago and humans have lived in what is now England for over 800,000 years.. The area that Sheffield now occupies has been inhabited for over 12,800 years, long before this island became three countries,

The country of England was formed by the union of the kingdoms of Northumbria and Wessex at Dore near Sheffield in 890 AD, so only the people that arrived after that are the descendants of immigrants.

 

Even if we are to take all that at face value, so what? What are you suggesting?

[aliceBB]

That's the old idea that we are made up from various conquests and influxes of immigrants, but new DNA evidence tells a different story, the vast majority of British people are the descendants of the humans that were here over 10,000 years ago and humans have lived in what is now England for over 800,000 years.. The area that Sheffield now occupies has been inhabited for over 12,800 years, long before this island became three countries,

The country of England was formed by the union of the kingdoms of Northumbria and Wessex at Dore near Sheffield in 890 AD, so only the people that arrived after that are the descendants of immigrants.

 

Well, I don't think that's quite what the 'new DNA evidence' reveals (it's more complex than you suggest), but OK, so you would deport anyone whose forbears arrived after 890 AD? That 's still a huge number of us. I'd definitely be on the hit list, as one of my grandmothers was French and the other Irish. In fact I don't think I know anyone who comes from a pure undefiled line of true Brits stretching back to 890.

 

If not that far back for your deportation list, then when, exactly?

[southcoast]

So, do you have any view as to how many generations a family has to have lived here before they can call themselves British?

 

Or is it just a case of anyone who isn't white can't be?

 

P.S. How white does white have to be before it's Ok with you. Is my wife's son British? His grandad was a black man and his dad is mixed race.

 

---------- Post added 23-01-2013 at 23:03 ----------

 

 

Even if we are to take all that at face value, so what? What are you suggesting?

 

Lol you know what halibut I'm going to answer you after all you have been quite persistent,even sending me PMs;)by the way dont send anymore,theres a good chap

The bit emboldened is what I'm going to comment on,By the way I think I have said this before but I will say it again,you have to be white to be British,now let me tell you why.

Historically this country has been white skinned,we come from Germanic roots,Aryan in fact,I'm sure this answer has you frothing at the mouth but historically its true.

Now you can call me a racist all you want but the fact I have a lovely black Jamaican woman sort of demolishes that doesn't it,I have no problem with someone skin color,I do have a major problem with mass immigration and people like you with far left views who have no love of their culture and history,now is that clear enough??