Mrs May, Hero of the Brexiters.

[NigelFargate]

 

I use the term fully within its dictionary definition, and there is nothing 'pejorative' about using a term as a qualifier or descriptive according to its dictionary meaning.

 

If you feel that it is pejorative however...maybe it says more about your perception of the political debate than mine.

/1]have some more[/url]

 

Again, your level of comprehension of the English language is clearly deficient if you think that in current discourse the term 'nativism' is not being used pejoratively. Perhaps you ought to familiarise yourself with the speeches of Douglas Carswell, or some Guardian articles. As in many other things, context is all.

 

Personally, I prefer the term 'heritage rights' to describe the perfectly understandable concerns of indigenous communities with regard to the impacts of mass immigration.

 

Incidentally, why do you sprinkle your posts with emoticons? They add nothing to the points you are making and are similar to the liberal use of exclamation marks; the use of red ink or capital letters by flaky individuals who write weird letters to newspapers. If you write clearly, then such devices should not be needed to emphasize specific points.

Edited October 7, 2016 by NigelFargate

[unbeliever]

Again, your level of comprehension of the English language is clearly deficient if you think that in current discourse the term 'nativism' is not being used pejoratively. Perhaps you ought to familiarise yourself with the speeches of Douglas Carswell, or some Guardian articles. As in many other things, context is all.

 

Personally, I prefer the term 'heritage rights' to describe the perfectly understandable concerns of indigenous communities with regard to the impacts of mass immigration.

 

 

This is the problem. You're dividing people into indigenous and immigrants. Into which group do you place the first, second and third generation descendants of immigrants? From a literal perspective they don't fit into either.

I'm an unusual animal myself as I voted leave and I have no problem with immigration. I can recognise the practical problems arising from high levels of migration, but I've yet to find somebody who speaks of indigenous, native or aboriginal UK people who's views on these matters I can remotely respect.

Edited October 7, 2016 by unbeliever

[jeremyjh1]

Try telling the "modern" left that the tories are now left !!! It seems to be in fashion to be far left these days, some of these people don't even realise how far their lent over they've been filled with so much propaganda from places like the huffington post and the morning star. I'm sure they'll say the same thing about the right and daily mail etc but I don't read the daily mail to realise how far this country is down the hole I use my eyes and ears while walking/travelling around the country.

 

---------- Post added 07-10-2016 at 06:09 ----------

 

 

I've never voted Tory and my family never has apart from my late grandad, I've voted UKIP all my life unfortunately though I'm the probably the last generation to do so as the young of this country have been indoctrinated by mostly lefty teachers and will probably all vote labour/lib dems/greens.

 

---------- Post added 07-10-2016 at 06:12 ----------

 

 

 

Hardly a step towards nazism by wanting to curb immigration is it !!

 

As has been pointed out before, depends how a country goes about curbing immigration. I do believe, also, that Fartage and his cronies have muddied the water (on purpose, of course) regarding immigration to the extent that almost everyone I have spoken to on the subject doesn't have a clue, in a legal sense, what is an immigrant. And it is no good saying it doesn't matter, in a legal sense, because unless you advocate vigilante justice, where the mob decide on a person by person basis, then the law has to be applied. For example, someone claiming refugee status they are not covered by immigration law.

 

As for a step towards nazism - the policy proposed by Rudd, applying to companies publishing the number of non-British workers they employ is very similar to an excerpt from Mein Kampf - so, no, not that far.

 

My face fits, though. I have a British passport, I have a birth certificate that shows I was born here. However, my mother would now be labelled an immigrant (having been an Irish citizen). So I may fall foul of any second wave of repatriation!!!

[NigelFargate]

This is the problem. You're dividing people into indigenous and immigrants. Into which group do you place the first, second and third generation descendants of immigrants? From a literal perspective they don't fit into either.

I'm an unusual animal myself as I voted leave and I have no problem with immigration. I can recognise the practical problems arising from high levels of migration, but I've yet to find somebody who speaks of indigenous, native or aboriginal UK people who's views on these matters I can remotely respect.

 

I have no problem with immigration per se either. I do however have a problem with mass immigration, particularly if a substantial component of it is comprised of social groups with very different cultures from our own, who are likely to concentrate in specific areas of the country, thereby creating insular ghettos, as we see today in many North European countries. This is a recipe for trouble.

[unbeliever]

I have no problem with immigration per se either. I do however have a problem with mass immigration, particularly if a substantial component of it is comprised of social groups with very different cultures from our own, who are likely to concentrate in specific areas of the country, thereby creating insular ghettos, as we see today in many North European countries. This is a recipe for trouble.

 

 

Sounds fine so far.

Could you address the specific question:

"You're dividing people into indigenous and immigrants. Into which group do you place the first, second and third generation descendants of immigrants? From a literal perspective they don't fit into either."

[L00b]

Again, your level of comprehension of the English language is clearly deficient if you think that in current discourse the term 'nativism' is not being used pejoratively. Perhaps you ought to familiarise yourself with the speeches of Douglas Carswell, or some Guardian articles. As in many other things, context is all.

Well, I certainly never thought that I'd see the day where a Leaver is asking me to read up Remoaner articles to try and justify his non-point

 

I (still) find the Oxford Dictionary is just fine, actually.

 

Here's the online version entry for nativism.

 

Clear, short, descriptive, to the point. As dictionary definitions should be. And not an once of pejorative connotation.

Personally, I prefer the term 'heritage rights' to describe the perfectly understandable concerns of indigenous communities with regard to the impacts of mass immigration.

It's your prerogative to use whatever terms float your emotional boat, but...is that you trying to dictate to me what terminology to use, because you choose to consider the plain and dictionary-correct terminology which I used as 'pejorative'?

 

Bit of a delicate flower if so, ain't you just?

Incidentally, why do you sprinkle your posts with emoticons? They add nothing to the points you are making and are similar to the liberal use of exclamation marks; the use of red ink or capital letters by flaky individuals who write weird letters to newspapers. If you write clearly, then such devices should not be needed to emphasize specific points.

Guess what? Like most other users who have been using emoticons since their advent in the early days of SMS, I "sprinkle" my posts with emoticons (a) because they can aid in conveying meaning and/or tone and (b) because I can. Who'd have thought?

 

Incidentally, besides looking a bit daft until now, you're starting to look a bit desperate here.

 

EDIT - Ooops, nearly forgot:

[altus]

I have no problem with immigration per se either. I do however have a problem with mass immigration, particularly if a substantial component of it is comprised of social groups with very different cultures from our own, who are likely to concentrate in specific areas of the country, thereby creating insular ghettos, as we see today in many North European countries. This is a recipe for trouble.

Nigel Farage, before the referendum, predicted that after a yes vote the number of immigrants from outside the EU, particularly from commonwealth countries, would go up. Those numbers aren't going to be made up of Australians and Canadians, it's going to be from India and Pakistan. It's also the reason why lots of British asians voted for brexit.

[NigelFargate]

Well, I certainly never thought that I'd see the day where a Leaver is asking me to read up Remoaner articles to try and justify his non-point

 

I (still) find the Oxford Dictionary is just fine, actually.

 

Here's the online version entry for nativism.

 

Clear, short, descriptive, to the point. As dictionary definitions should be. And not an once of pejorative connotation.

It's your prerogative to use whatever terms float your emotional boat, but...is that you trying to dictate to me what terminology to use, because you choose to consider the plain and dictionary-correct terminology which I used as 'pejorative'?

 

Bit of a delicate flower if so, ain't you just?

Guess what? Like most other users who have been using emoticons since their advent in the early days of SMS, I "sprinkle" my posts with emoticons (a) because they can aid in conveying meaning and/or tone and (b) because I can. Who'd have thought?

 

Incidentally, besides looking a bit daft until now, you're starting to look a bit desperate here.

 

EDIT - Ooops, nearly forgot:

 

You don't do subtlety do you? You seem incapable of understanding the point that words can be used to convey different meanings in different contexts. They can, for example, be used euphemistically to convey contempt, as in the case of Carswell's (and others') use of the term 'nativism' or 'angry nativism' in contemporary discussions of immigration. As I said earlier, it is a lazy sneering cliche, of a kind which riddle your posts.

 

As for emoticons, feel free to use as many as you like, since you are obviously incapable of conveying meaning through words, other than through the lazy cliches referred to above.

 

---------- Post added 07-10-2016 at 14:04 ----------

 

Nigel Farage, before the referendum, predicted that after a yes vote the number of immigrants from outside the EU, particularly from commonwealth countries, would go up. Those numbers aren't going to be made up of Australians and Canadians, it's going to be from India and Pakistan. It's also the reason why lots of British asians voted for brexit.

 

Very true. However, it is about numbers and also about the capacity to control who is let in.

Edited October 7, 2016 by NigelFargate

[L00b]

You don't do subtlety do you? You seem incapable of understanding the point that words can be used to convey different meanings in different contexts. They can, for example, be used euphemistically to convey contempt, as in the case of Carswell's (and others') use of the term 'nativism' or 'angry nativism' in contemporary discussions of immigration. As I said earlier, it is a lazy sneering cliche, of a kind which riddle your posts.[/Quote]Still floundering, Nigel?

 

Have you got masochist tendencies?

As for emoticons, feel free to use as many as you like, since you are obviously incapable of conveying meaning through words, other than through the lazy cliches referred to above.[/Quote]Obviously I shall. With or without your permission