White Man: Why Are You Giving Away Your Country?

[Scaff]

That is sustainable for them at this moment. We are talking decades away, with a climbing migration rate.

That's a totally different point.

Your claim was that the US Bill of Right would not be able to remain in place if it were subject to a level of cultural shift brought on by migration of the level the UK is facing.

Given that the US has (even during its most restrictive period) always had a greater level of net migration than the UK or EU is currently facing. Simply put the claim that the Bill of Rights would fall under the burden of change demanded by migration levels similar to those to UK and EU now face is not supported at all by data.

The US has faced sustained levels of net migration since 1965 that were far higher (and only fell to levels on par with the UK and still higher than the EU last year) and still, despite this being for 50 years, the Bill of Rights is still in place.

I thought you were in favour of the EU proposal (everyone can vote)

Never said it, never came clsoe to saying it.

I asked you why you thought DC made that choice, you then replied as if I was in support of an open referendum.

Sure she can in a universe where Blatter knew nothing about the corruption in FIFA.

She's an idiot that couldn't hold a job for a few years. Blatter has controlled one of the largest sporting bodies on the planet for near 20 years. Not even remotely comparable.

You are comparing rate for rate, surge for surge without addressing the facts. America chose this rate, and believes it is sustainable.

I'm quite sure that a few American would disagree with that, not that it changes the facts to hand.

You said the Bill of Rights would not stand migration on the level the UK is facing right now, when it has survived rates far higher for 50 years.

It is free to reduce, or increase it should it choose to. Our differences, and the reason for my belief that our (higher) rate is unsustainable are:

- In terms of land mass we are slightly smaller than Oregon.
- We have a public health system in comparison to private.
- Schools here have to cater to a greater variety of cultural and linguistic needs.

Given that the figures I've used are based on a per head basis the land mass and populations are accounted for. Yes the US is larger, but it also has more areas that are not habitable. Hence the reason we use figures that allow for more direct comparison (well I did).

They do have a different heath service, however you omit to mention that EU migrants are less likely to use the NHS and also are net contributors to the public purse (to the tune of around £5 billion a year).

Most EU migrants are also single or childless couples who do not place a large burden on schools, those who do have children are then learning English from birth.

You seem to be conflating the burden placed by non-eu migration (which is and can be controlled) with EU migration.

You'll hopefully not forget I also said:
opened the southern border in such a way to produce a surge of immigration as we have experienced

A totally moot point given that net migration into the US has been twice as high as the UK currently has for 50 years.

We don't need a hypothetical to reach far higher levels that the UK has right now, they have been a reality for 50 years, and the Bill of Rights still stands.

Which is akin to our membership of the EU. Imagine the US was part of an "Americas Union". This involved most of the countries of North and South America. This Union then permitted free travel between all members, meaning the southern border of the US would effectively be opened. You would expect a surge on top of the surge America created for itself the past few decades, and the demographics of these migrants would be different to the current migrant population. It is this surge, and new rate that would be comparable. And yes, I believe you would see problems decades from now with such a continuous rate.

Moving goalposts to a huge degree now.

Would the Bill have an issue if US migration rates increased ten fold (I've pick a mad number as you didn't bother)?

Maybe, but lets be blunt, that wasn't what you said at all:

"They are, but the laws haven't faced the test of a massive culture shift predicated by sustained mass immigration (at least by late 20th/21st century standards). Yes America was built by immigrants, but would the Bill of Rights and America as you know it survive if you opened the southern border in such a way to produce a surge of immigration as we have experienced: "

They have faced a test far greater than the UK or the EU for 50 years. They passed.

 

[ClydeYellow]

Bringing up Arab Nationalism and ignoring religion is like bringing up Nazism and ignoring white supremacy

No, bringing up Arab Nationalism and ignoring its secularism and its desire to replace religion as the main provider of values in religion-driven societies is like considering the Holocaust the product of white supremacism rather than a very specific idea of nationhood and ethical state which didn't allow for the existence of Jews, Roma and other such non-nations, to which white supremacism was only a corollary of sorts.

And speaking of the Armenian Genocide, the dhimmi (the Armenians, Greek, Assyrians and other Christian minorities) persecuted in the Armenian genocide weren't persecuted for their religion - but rather for the cultural/ethnical identity produced by their difference in religious faith with the rest of Turkey. Under Ottoman rule, Christians in Turkey were organized in their own millets. Ghettos, if you wish. Under that regard, the Armenian Genocide shouldn't be seen as any different from the European Shoah - as the elimination of an ethnic group that didn't conform to a monolithic idea of national identity.

So, while perhaps religion provided the basis for the creation of differences that eventually led to the creation of a distinct Armenian identity (which was supported by the organization of the Ottoman Empire, which found its legitimacy in religion), and while it was used as a factor of discrimination towards Armenians, it would be a grave mistake to consider it the driving force behind their genocide. The driving force was the desire to eliminate everybody who wasn't Turkish from Turkey. The Armenians spoke a different language and had different customs: religion was only a piece of the puzzle.

In other words: the Armenians weren't slaugthered because they were christians, but rather because they were Armenians, and Turkey was now supposed to be for Turks. Armenians weren't offered to renounce their faith or die: they were killed around the clock with remarkable efficiency, and to escape had to hide their identity - they didn't have to play muslim, they had to play Turk.

Also, as a good rule of thumb, religion causes pogroms and forced conversions, not genocides. No religion that argues the unbeliever should be killed without offering him conversion first is sustainable, simply because it is in the nature of groups such as religious creeds (especially those of Abrahamic to expand. Something else must intervene, and that is a political will.

 

[KSaiyu]

That's a totally different point.

Your claim was that the US Bill of Right would not be able to remain in place if it were subject to a level of cultural shift brought on by migration of the level the UK is facing.

Given that the US has (even during its most restrictive period) always had a greater level of net migration than the UK or EU is currently facing. Simply put the claim that the Bill of Rights would fall under the burden of change demanded by migration levels similar to those to UK and EU now face is not supported at all by data.

The US has faced sustained levels of net migration since 1965 that were far higher (and only fell to levels on par with the UK and still higher than the EU last year) and still, despite this being for 50 years, the Bill of Rights is still in place.

Yep.

She's an idiot that couldn't hold a job for a few years. Blatter has controlled one of the largest sporting bodies on the planet for near 20 years. Not even remotely comparable.

Nope. She's an Islamist. As Ayelet Shaked is a quasi-genocidal Zionist.

You said the Bill of Rights would not stand migration on the level the UK is facing right now, when it has survived rates far higher for 50 years.

Again, that's comparing rate for rate. That wasn't the point, as explained in my last post.

Given that the figures I've used are based on a per head basis the land mass and populations are accounted for. Yes the US is larger, but it also has more areas that are not habitable. Hence the reason we use figures that allow for more direct comparison (well I did).

We do use per population in rates for that reason (to make comparisons easy), but land mass plays a considerable role. Tokyo and Bournemouth could have equal rates in net migration for instance - which would be sustainable for longer?

They do have a different heath service, however you omit to mention that EU migrants are less likely to use the NHS and also are net contributors to the public purse (to the tune of around £5 billion a year).

The one that found EU migrants contribute £5 billion net but non-EU cost £118 billion?
EU migrants are less likely to use the NHS because they are younger and they didn't grow up in a nanny state (I'd like to see the study though please for interest). This I'm not debating.
What you're getting is increased traffic. We have chronic staff shortages on the NHS frontline. Adding more patients to the system, no matter how infrequently they use it is madness. And it has to be asked - what happens when they do become frequent users? In other words, what happens when they age?

Most EU migrants are also single or childless couples who do not place a large burden on schools, those who do have children are then learning English from birth.

You seem to be conflating the burden placed by non-eu migration (which is and can be controlled) with EU migration.

Not really. The burden from non-EU is laughably bad, but you've got a whole mix of languages, and a whole lot of places to provide from a combination of them both.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...influx-of-foreign-students-teachers-warn.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3023877/Immigration-fuelling-primary-school-crisis.html

A totally moot point given that net migration into the US has been twice as high as the UK currently has for 50 years.

We don't need a hypothetical to reach far higher levels that the UK has right now, they have been a reality for 50 years, and the Bill of Rights still stands.

I tried to explain my logic.

Moving goalposts to a huge degree now.

Would the Bill have an issue if US migration rates increased ten fold (I've pick a mad number as you didn't bother)?

Maybe, but lets be blunt, that wasn't what you said at all:

"They are, but the laws haven't faced the test of a massive culture shift predicated by sustained mass immigration (at least by late 20th/21st century standards). Yes America was built by immigrants, but would the Bill of Rights and America as you know it survive if you opened the southern border in such a way to produce a surge of immigration as we have experienced: "

They have faced a test far greater than the UK or the EU for 50 years. They passed.

Since when? Has someone in Mexico been given the keys to dictate their migration policy in any of those 50 years?

Or have they been more selective of their immigrants, dictating their own policy.

No, bringing up Arab Nationalism and ignoring its secularism and its desire to replace religion as the main provider of values in religion-driven societies is like considering the Holocaust the product of white supremacism rather than a very specific idea of nationhood and ethical state which didn't allow for the existence of Jews, Roma and other such non-nations, to which white supremacism was only a corollary of sorts.

And speaking of the Armenian Genocide, the dhimmi (the Armenians, Greek, Assyrians and other Christian minorities) persecuted in the Armenian genocide weren't persecuted for their religion - but rather for the cultural/ethnical identity produced by their difference in religious faith with the rest of Turkey. Under Ottoman rule, Christians in Turkey were organized in their own millets. Ghettos, if you wish. Under that regard, the Armenian Genocide shouldn't be seen as any different from the European Shoah - as the elimination of an ethnic group that didn't conform to a monolithic idea of national identity.

So, while perhaps religion provided the basis for the creation of differences that eventually led to the creation of a distinct Armenian identity (which was supported by the organization of the Ottoman Empire, which found its legitimacy in religion), and while it was used as a factor of discrimination towards Armenians, it would be a grave mistake to consider it the driving force behind their genocide. The driving force was the desire to eliminate everybody who wasn't Turkish from Turkey. The Armenians spoke a different language and had different customs: religion was only a piece of the puzzle.

In other words: the Armenians weren't slaugthered because they were christians, but rather because they were Armenians, and Turkey was now supposed to be for Turks. Armenians weren't offered to renounce their faith or die: they were killed around the clock with remarkable efficiency, and to escape had to hide their identity - they didn't have to play muslim, they had to play Turk.

Also, as a good rule of thumb, religion causes pogroms and forced conversions, not genocides. No religion that argues the unbeliever should be killed without offering him conversion first is sustainable, simply because it is in the nature of groups such as religious creeds (especially those of Abrahamic to expand. Something else must intervene, and that is a political will.

Ding ding ding.

I particularly like your use of the word dhimmi, and within the same sentence say they weren't persecuted for their religion.

 

[Danoff]

Surely if this was true, Mexico would be similarly attractive to would be migrants. But I get your point as it relates to controlled immigration.

Why do you say that? Mexico doesn't have the government structure the US does.

 

[ClydeYellow]

I particularly like your use of the word dhimmi, and within the same sentence say they weren't persecuted for their religion.

I'm afraid you still miss my point; allow me to explain it again. I do not reject the notion that the Three Pashas regime targeted certain ethnic groups using religion as a discriminant factor, just as you'd use the color of the players jersey to distinguish who's playing for what team at a football match; I reject the notion that it has anything to do with religion other than that.

Religion creates identity. So does language, customs, profession, and so on. Identities are sometimes polarizing - they create enemies, and when there's a great disparity between two different identitary groups that are at odds, the stronger will persecute the weaker. If you are familiar with Stanton's eight stages of genocide you shouldn't have much of a problem seeing what I mean.

Therefore yes, religion may be a facilitating factor, but isn't the cause of the Armenian genocide. To put it in terms that don't perhaps do justice to the suffering of millions which were killed just because they were part of the minority, when a genocide happens you have a lot of people wanting to kill someone else, you have a culture putting very little value into human life, and religion is just a thing painting a target on that someone else's back. The Armenians, Assyrian and Greek were already living in separate communities (such was the heritage of a time that wasn't far removed from the period of the Armenian genocide where temporal and religious power in the Ottoman Empire were conflated), were speaking different languages, praying different gods (well, kinda). They weren't killed because they were Christian; they were killed because they were different (although surely part of the difference was that they were Christian; the Young Turks weren't, after all, interested in religious matters as much as they were interested in propelling the Ottoman Empire into moderity through war).

Hutu and Tutsi killed each other for decades after Belgium abandoned Rwanda, and it eventually culminated in a genocide that surpasses, in size and brutality, the Armenian genocide. The reasons of the divide? One group is lactose-intolerant, the other isn't (actually, it's more complicated than that, and I have it on good authority that the reason the tension between Hutu and Tutsi built up wasn't because one group could drink milk and the other couldn't, but still, the fact that it's nigh-impossible to know if a Rwandan is a Hutu or Tutsi without delving in their genealogy makes you think).
So, if you want to argue that if religion didn't exist the Armenian genocide would have not happened because a separate Armenian identity wouldn't have developed under the rule of the Caliphs, then yeah, you may be correct. But then, if that's your point, shouldn't we abandon all sorts of identity just because we may be on the receiving end of a genocide? Or we may actually perpetrate it? Doesn't that make your point about preserving white heritage moot?
Mind you, that is not my point. I believe the solution to the inherent danger of genocide is to place a great deat of value in human life and the acceptance of diversity. And I won't argue if you tell me the Islamic world still has to do a great deal of advancing under that regard (although I believe it has a lot to do with the backwardness of this world, a backwardness to which the West contributed, sometimes unwittingly, sometimes gleefully).

And if you want to argue that the problem is not with religions, but with Islam (which arguably was HKS racer's point to start with), well, go tell that to the Rohingya people, just to cite a group of Muslims being persecuted in circumstances eerily similiar to those of the Armenian genocide. No religion builds its followers, it's the followers that build their own personal religion.

[As for Pan-Arabism, you seem to confuse it with Islamism an awful lot. It was a political movement that had as much to do with religion as the European Union, which is to say, nothing. It should also be said that Turkish nationalism is a completely separated phenomenon, as Turkey is not part of the Arab world]

 

[Scaff]

Yep.

Yep what?

Nope. She's an Islamist. As Ayelet Shaked is a quasi-genocidal Zionist.

I personally think the evidence for naive idiot is just as compelling, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Again, that's comparing rate for rate. That wasn't the point, as explained in my last post.

Actually its comparing a significantly higher rate for a much longer period of time and you last point moves into the subject of sustainability, which was not the point you were making.

We do use per population in rates for that reason (to make comparisons easy), but land mass plays a considerable role. Tokyo and Bournemouth could have equal rates in net migration for instance - which would be sustainable for longer?

Sustainability wasn't either the topic of discussion or the claim you made.

The claim you made was that the Bill of Rights would not survive sustained net migration on a scale the UK is seeing right now. It has sustained a far higher level of net migration for a 50 year period. Attempting to shift the discussion to sustainability does nothing to change that at all, your point was about the level of cultural change that would come from net migration levels at the UK rate and a claim that US laws had not been tested in that manner.

The one that found EU migrants contribute £5 billion net but non-EU cost £118 billion?
EU migrants are less likely to use the NHS because they are younger and they didn't grow up in a nanny state (I'd like to see the study though please for interest). This I'm not debating.
What you're getting is increased traffic. We have chronic staff shortages on the NHS frontline. Adding more patients to the system, no matter how infrequently they use it is madness. And it has to be asked - what happens when they do become frequent users? In other words, what happens when they age?

A discussion for the UK thread, not this one.

Not really. The burden from non-EU is laughably bad, but you've got a whole mix of languages, and a whole lot of places to provide from a combination of them both.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...influx-of-foreign-students-teachers-warn.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3023877/Immigration-fuelling-primary-school-crisis.html

Given that neither of those sources bothers to break down the impact from the EU vs Non-EU migration these are useless. Oh and its once again not pertinent to the point at hand.

Unless you want to go into Spanish being a very common language in the US now, a point that has had an impact on the US and yet has still failed to cause a cultural change that has forced a rewrite of the Bill of Rights.

I tried to explain my logic.

By shifting the topic to sustainability, which was not the claim you made.

Since when? Has someone in Mexico been given the keys to dictate their migration policy in any of those 50 years?

Or have they been more selective of their immigrants, dictating their own policy.

What?

This is very simple. You made the following claim:

"They are, but the laws haven't faced the test of a massive culture shift predicated by sustained mass immigration (at least by late 20th/21st century standards). Yes America was built by immigrants, but would the Bill of Rights and America as you know it survive if you opened the southern border in such a way to produce a surge of immigration as we have experienced: "

It has faced a test of a "massive culture shift predicated by sustained mass immigration", one far higher than the UK and the EU have faced, the laws survived intact.

Its southern border was open "in such a way to produce a surge of immigration as we have experienced", in fact it was open in such a way that when combined with all other migration the US had a net migration twice as high as that the EU currently faces, and did so for 50 years. Even with the southern border effectively closed to migration (as it is now) the net migration rate in the US is still on par with the UK's and higher than the EU average. Once again the Bill of Right survived just fine.

So despite both of your claims not being factually correct, the Bill of Rights is still in place.

Arguably one of the single biggest threats to the Bill of Rights, the introduction of 'In God We Trust' to the pledge and currency in 1956, was carried out by culturally white Americans and occurred during one of the lowest periods of immigration the US has seen.

 

[Danoff]

Arguably one of the single biggest threats to the Bill of Rights, the introduction of 'In God We Trust' to the pledge and currency in 1956, was carried out by culturally white Americans and occurred during one of the lowest periods of immigration the US has seen.

I just want to reinforce this point, and one which I made earlier. Virtually every attack on the bill of rights is carried out by groups that have been in America for decades. The most destructive force against the bill of rights in American history was carried out under FDR. We still suffer much of the effects of that destruction of American "culture" today, and that was carried out and championed by "white folks".

 

[KSaiyu]

Why do you say that? Mexico doesn't have the government structure the US does.

Exactly. Mexicans created a Mexican government to reflect the predominantly Mexican demographic. Your two governments reflect (at least in the examples we're talking about) what populations have agreed upon. This can change with a large enough demographic shift. We now have parts of North London trying to ban women from driving. Can you imagine if there was a massive surge of Hasidic Jews into London - enough to influence the upcoming mayoral elections?

And if you want to argue that the problem is not with religions, but with Islam (which arguably was HKS racer's point to start with), well, go tell that to the Rohingya people, just to cite a group of Muslims being persecuted in circumstances eerily similiar to those of the Armenian genocide. No religion builds its followers, it's the followers that build their own personal religion

Ironically you are proving my point. It was in fact uncontrolled migration that led to the current problems with the Rohingya - something completely different to the Armenians who were the victims of Muslim conquest. I hope after reading you'll appreciate the differences

From wikipedia because I'm lazy:

British policy encouraged Bengali inhabitants from adjacent regions to migrate into the then lightly populated and fertile valleys of Arakan as farm laborers. The East India Company extended the Bengal Presidency to Arakan. There was no international boundary between Bengal and Arakan and no restrictions on migration between the regions. In the early 19th century, thousands of Bengalis from the Chittagong region settled in Arakan seeking work.[44]

The British census of 1871 reported 58,255 Muslims in Akyab District. By 1911, the Muslim population had increased to 178,647.[45] The waves of migration were primarily due to the requirement of cheap labour from British India to work in the paddy fields. Immigrants from Bengal, mainly from the Chittagong region, "moved en masse into western townships of Arakan". To be sure, Indian immigration to Burma was a nationwide phenomenon, not just restricted to Arakan.

At the beginning of the 20th century, Indians were arriving in Burma at the rate of no less than a quarter million per year. The numbers rose steadily until the peak year of 1927, immigration reached 480,000 people, with Rangoon exceeding New York City as the greatest immigration port in the world. This was out of a total population of only 13 million; it was equivalent to the United Kingdom today taking 2 million people a year." By then, in most of the largest cities in Burma, Yangon, Sittwe, Pathein and Mawlamyine, the Indian immigrants formed a majority of the population.

And what happens when you get a big demographic shakeup, especially with religious differences?

The Burmese under the British rule felt helpless, and reacted with a "racism that combined feelings of superiority and fear."

Aye Chan, a historian at the Kanda University, has written that as a consequence of acquiring arms from the British during World War II, Rohingyas tried to destroy the Arakanese villages instead of resisting the Japanese.[3]

On 28 March 1942, around 5,000 Muslims in Minbya and Mrohaung Townships were killed by Rakhine nationalists and Karenni. Rohingya Muslims from Northern Rakhine State killed around 20,000 Arakanese, including the Deputy Commissioner U Oo Kyaw Khaing, who was killed while trying to settle the dispute.[4]

Cue persecution from the Japanese, Burmese and indifference from other nations.
Perhaps you can see how this correlates to the European situation with Muslims. The M.O hasn't changed - overwhelm by immigration and breeding and then overthrow (and before I hear chimes of "OMGGG RACIST", it's not like whites weren't known for Imperialism). The problem with the Rohingya is they were left up **** creek when they couldn't go back to Bangladesh after facing persecution - persecution that still isn't justified, despite the reasons (gotta love how quickly Buddha's teachings go out the window when you have ethno-religious tensions).

So yes, they are persecuted. But to compare them to the Armenians is ignorance at best, apologism at worst.

Yep what?

The bolded part.

Actually its comparing a significantly higher rate for a much longer period of time and you last point moves into the subject of sustainability, which was not the point you were making.

Sustainability wasn't either the topic of discussion or the claim you made.

The claim you made was that the Bill of Rights would not survive sustained net migration on a scale the UK is seeing right now. It has sustained a far higher level of net migration for a 50 year period. Attempting to shift the discussion to sustainability does nothing to change that at all, your point was about the level of cultural change that would come from net migration levels at the UK rate and a claim that US laws had not been tested in that manner.

Because it chose that rate. The rate wasn't chosen for them (our example). The US hasn't been tested in that manner because of this difference.

Unless you want to go into Spanish being a very common language in the US now, a point that has had an impact on the US and yet has still failed to cause a cultural change that has forced a rewrite of the Bill of Rights.

There's the point. If you look at one of those sources you'll see the amount of different languages in the classroom.
EU migration compounds this problem. As you rightly say America deals mainly with Spanish in comparison.

What?

It has faced a test of a "massive culture shift predicated by sustained mass immigration", one far higher than the UK and the EU have faced, the laws survived intact.

Not yet, because - once again - it controlled this immigration. Australia has a net migration of 5.74, yet I see no threat to its government. America, with its own surge doesn't face this either. My example was comparing what would happen if they faced a similar predicament as us. We aren't talking rate vs rate, it's never that simple and I used a graph to illustrate the drastic surge that we, at the moment can't control. You have to look at the whole paragraph:
- Massive culture shift, which is a product of uncontrolled migration
- Later 20th/21st Century standards, which is using this graph and the reasons behind it given in follow up posts

- opened the southern border in such a way to produce a surge of immigration as we have experienced, which is the main reason, and is given in the post and later expanded in follow up posts.

 

[Liquid]

@KSaiyu With all this dangerous immigration to the UK, do you feel that Britain is selling its white principles down the river? Plenty of immigrants are from other 'white countries' or are of Caucasian backgrounds.

Just trying to somehow drag things back on topic.

 

[KSaiyu]

Its Anglo-Saxon heritage. 'White culture' is too broad to be used here - kind of like using South Asian to describe Indians, Pakistanis and Sri Lankans.

The 'white culture' of Europe however is different (again, like the South Asian culture in comparison to the 'far-east' nations of Asia).

For example my hometown is still overwhelmingly white in some areas, but it's changed from 'British white' to 'Polish white' so much so that it's rare to hear English when walking through it.

 

[Liquid]

Its Anglo-Saxon heritage.

Fair enough, at least we're getting somewhere better, descriptively. I absolute concur that 'white culture' is a meaningless term.

How does this Anglo-Saxon heritage mix in with the indigenous Celtic heritage and culture? It can be argued in one sense that these islands have already become overrun with immigrants dictating laws, taking away religion and ignoring the indigenous culture & language.

But of course, that's so long in the past now that it doesn't matter. We've moved on, haven't we?

 

[KSaiyu]

Indeed, we assume we have more rights than the indigenous long ago did for some stupid reason (I say "we" even though the only white I have is that one of my grandmas was Irish).

 

[Scaff]

The bolded part.

And what about the bolded part?

Because it chose that rate. The rate wasn't chosen for them (our example). The US hasn't been tested in that manner because of this difference.

There's the point. If you look at one of those sources you'll see the amount of different languages in the classroom.
EU migration compounds this problem. As you rightly say America deals mainly with Spanish in comparison.

Not yet, because - once again - it controlled this immigration. Australia has a net migration of 5.74, yet I see no threat to its government. America, with its own surge doesn't face this either. My example was comparing what would happen if they faced a similar predicament as us. We aren't talking rate vs rate, it's never that simple and I used a graph to illustrate the drastic surge that we, at the moment can't control. You have to look at the whole paragraph:
- Massive culture shift, which is a product of uncontrolled migration
- Later 20th/21st Century standards, which is using this graph and the reasons behind it given in follow up posts

- opened the southern border in such a way to produce a surge of immigration as we have experienced, which is the main reason, and is given in the post and later expanded in follow up posts.

Sorry when exactly did you establish as a fact that chosen controlled migration doesn't have a cultural impact but un-chosen uncontrolled immigration does have a cultural impact?

As you seriously saying that migration into the US has had no cultural impact at all? That despite having a far higher level of net migration, because its controlled these people therefore bring no cultural baggage with them at all?

The US has had a significantly higher level of net migration for a significantly longer period of time, yet your claiming that because this was quota driven that any cultural impact is reduced or negated?

 

[niky]

I particularly like how the sole example of conflict caused by migration is not due to uncontrolled migration, but forced migration.

Of course, mass migration is disastrous for the people whose land is being migrated to. Just ask the Aboriginies or the American Indians. But we're talking here of migration into a modern, stable society.

-

I also had to chuckle at the mention of the move for banning women drivers in London (since it isn't even a political move, merely a rule enforced within a particular sect). This is where we come back to the misconception way at the start of the thread, a misconception some people can't seem to get around:

Cultural assimilation goes both ways. At all times.

Women have severely curtailed rights in many predominantly Muslim countries, but exposure to Western culture and modern education has raised awareness to the point where many are in favor of increasing women's rights.

In the west, even with an overwhelming Muslim (or Jewish) majority, it would be impossible to pass laws curtailing a woman's right to drive, not unless you also radically alter the mix of moderates and extremists as well.

Granted, yes, there is the danger of cultures and groups that remain insular, but if they want to affect any change in the law at all, they need to interact with the greater culture, which leaves them open to change.

 

[KSaiyu]

I particularly like how the sole example of conflict caused by migration is not due to uncontrolled migration, but forced migration.

?

I also had to chuckle at the mention of the move for banning women drivers in London (since it isn't even a political move, merely a rule enforced within a particular sect). This is where we come back to the misconception way at the start of the thread, a misconception some people can't seem to get around

And when the sect becomes a large enough entity to force it through politically?

 

[Danoff]

Exactly. Mexicans created a Mexican government to reflect the predominantly Mexican demographic. Your two governments reflect (at least in the examples we're talking about) what populations have agreed upon.

Really?

Mexico has kinda flirted with democracy recently, but let's not pretend that the Mexican government is a prefect representation of what the Mexican people want. Let's also not pretend that the Mexican people who stay in Mexico are the same demographic as the Mexican people who essentially flee Mexico to the US.

 

[KSaiyu]

Really?

Mexico has kinda flirted with democracy recently, but let's not pretend that the Mexican government is a prefect representation of what the Mexican people want. Let's also not pretend that the Mexican people who stay in Mexico are the same demographic as the Mexican people who essentially flee Mexico to the US.

Precisely, which is what you risk jeopardising should you have uncontrolled immigration. The people who are staying in Mexico for the time being may not have such an inclination to stay put should the border open.

It is at that point that the migrant Mexican population would be comparable to our present situation - kinda like comparing migrants from Europe to Britain in the eighties to EU migrants in 2015. There was a more pressing need back then to integrate - you would have far fewer of the problems we have now with migrants failing language tests when working in the NHS (don't worry, I've had enough time on that soapbox).

 

[Danoff]

Precisely, which is what you risk jeopardising should you have uncontrolled immigration. The people who are staying in Mexico for the time being may not have such an inclination to stay put should the border open.

It is at that point that the migrant Mexican population would be comparable to our present situation - kinda like comparing migrants from Europe to Britain in the eighties to EU migrants in 2015. There was a more pressing need back then to integrate - you would have far fewer of the problems we have now with migrants failing language tests when working in the NHS (don't worry, I've had enough time on that soapbox).

My point is that you can't look at the Mexican government and say "that's what the immigrants want to create here". It's wrong for two reasons, 1) it's not a good representation of what they want in the first place 2) the immigrants are coming here because they want something different.

 

[mustafur]

Its Anglo-Saxon heritage. 'White culture' is too broad to be used here - kind of like using South Asian to describe Indians, Pakistanis and Sri Lankans.

The 'white culture' of Europe however is different (again, like the South Asian culture in comparison to the 'far-east' nations of Asia).

For example my hometown is still overwhelmingly white in some areas, but it's changed from 'British white' to 'Polish white' so much so that it's rare to hear English when walking through it.

Remember this:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_III_of_England

 

[KSaiyu]

My point is that you can't look at the Mexican government and say "that's what the immigrants want to create here". It's wrong for two reasons, 1) it's not a good representation of what they want in the first place 2) the immigrants are coming here because they want something different.

Oh most definitely agree. This is what you have at the moment, as we had up until probably the mid nineties. The funny thing is if you look at the problem we have with Islam in the UK migrants from Pakistan in the '50s-70s can't understand why their children/grandchildren aren't identify with British identity. They were a lot more secular and British in comparison, which I believe is very much because they had to be before the PC brigade came along.

Since I love analogies imagine there was a hospital, say "US General". They took doctors and nurses from all over the world at a set rate, as long as they met a certain standard. This attracted the best and brightest, and the staff remained committed to the founding principles and ethos of US General. Some years later however a governing body for all hospitals in the Americas, let's call it the "AHS" decreed that there should be freer movement of doctors and nurses to and from US General. Being one of the best hospitals in the world naturally meant far fewer wanted to leave than those wanting to come in. Accordingly there was a massive influx of staff from the same countries that the best doctors and nurses previously came from, and while the majority of these doctors and nurses were willing to work hard a skills gap was starting to develop. Also, the old US General culture was gradually being eroded and replaced with a completely different approach to healthcare. Eventually, with the election of board members from this and subsequent intakes of staff some decades later US General became like all other hospitals in the AHS.

Remember this:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_III_of_England

What's depressing is I don't know who that is. There's a lot more focus on civil rights history than our own in schools.

 

[niky]

?

Your example is one where a colonial power encouraged the en masse movement of migrants for cheap labor into largely empty land... allowing them to form a single culture with a claim to that land. And then World War II, which upended a lot of people and led to the arming and radicalization of not only these displaced settlers, but tribes and peoples who were not recent immigrants to their countries. As happened here in the Philippines, where native guerillas, once armed, decided that being rid of the Japanese wasn't enough... they wanted all foreign occupying forces out.

-

This is a very different situation from one in which immigrants are thrown into a highly-developed multicultural society.

And when the sect becomes a large enough entity to force it through politically?

Two-way street. Women's rights are in their infancy in the Middle East, but the situation has changed quite a bit from the way it was before. There's no reason to believe that a very conservative culture, hidebound due to social, economic and geographical reasons, will stay that way once transplanted into a new country. Culture is a product of more than just religion.

-

Let's look at the Jewish community in the United States, shall we? A community that's very powerful, very rich, and very willing to let its daughters and wives drive cars.

Whereas those communities with less freedom and less acceptance of "western" culture have marginalized and isolated themselves, and are slowly dying away.

-

Also, hospital analogy, speaking as a part-owner of a medical school with many graduates in the United States, is faulty. Simply because many third-world doctors aspire to work in the US because they perceive the culture and practice of medicine there is superior, not because they feel the need to supplant it.

 

[Scaff]

What's depressing is I don't know who that is. There's a lot more focus on civil rights history than our own in schools.

As a parent of three children, one of whom is still in school I have to say that is utter nonsense.

Yes civil rights history is taught and yes history from other parts of the world are taught (as a comparison to UK history) but the key focus is firmly on British history.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...iculum-in-england-history-programmes-of-study

 

[Draggon]

A very hot topic for certain, and there are good points to be made on all sides. The one problem I have is with my town. I've lived in the same house now for 30 years. In the last 10, English has in fact become the second language. It's rare now to hear someone speaking English unless its at the grocery store or certain restaurants. In the last 5 years, the strip mall a couple blocks from my house has changed all of the signage..there is not one building nor sign written in English. At times I feel like an interloper in my own neighborhood.

 

[KSaiyu]

As a parent of three children, one of whom is still in school I have to say that is utter nonsense.

Yes civil rights history is taught and yes history from other parts of the world are taught (as a comparison to UK history) but the key focus is firmly on British history.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...iculum-in-england-history-programmes-of-study

Excellent news, can change that to "was a lot more focused". Unfortunately ask anyone from my era (school leaver 2000-2005) about British history and you'll get blank stares. We simply weren't taught it, and instead forced a load of civil rights/cold war history (I actually still have my history exercise books) . What you've linked to is the result of Gove's reforms - someone so good at saving the education system from itself he was universally reviled by the Teaching Unions:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jul/13/michael-gove-teaching-history-wars
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ulum-schools-told-teach-history-properly.html
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jul/08/michael-gove-education-curriculum-fractions

Your example is one where a colonial power encouraged the en masse movement of migrants for cheap labor into largely empty land... allowing them to form a single culture with a claim to that land. And then World War II, which upended a lot of people and led to the arming and radicalization of not only these displaced settlers, but tribes and peoples who were not recent immigrants to their countries. As happened here in the Philippines, where native guerillas, once armed, decided that being rid of the Japanese wasn't enough... they wanted all foreign occupying forces out.

-

This is a very different situation from one in which immigrants are thrown into a highly-developed multicultural society.

Encouraged doesn't mean forced.

Two-way street. Women's rights are in their infancy in the Middle East

And that is where they shall remain

Let's look at the Jewish community in the United States, shall we? A community that's very powerful, very rich, and very willing to let its daughters and wives drive cars.

Whereas those communities with less freedom and less acceptance of "western" culture have marginalized and isolated themselves, and are slowly dying away.

Huh? That's not the Hasidic community

Also, hospital analogy, speaking as a part-owner of a medical school with many graduates in the United States, is faulty. Simply because many third-world doctors aspire to work in the US because they perceive the culture and practice of medicine there is superior, not because they feel the need to supplant it.

Using it as an analogy for US opening the borders, or a hospital dramatically lowering standards (of which a lot of NHS hospitals are doing funnily enough).

As it stands now many third-world doctors aspire to work in the US, but don't end up practising there simply due to the effort required. In my scenario, someone that isn't the owner of the hospital allows them to practice there by freeing the entry route.

A very hot topic for certain, and there are good points to be made on all sides. The one problem I have is with my town. I've lived in the same house now for 30 years. In the last 10, English has in fact become the second language. It's rare now to hear someone speaking English unless its at the grocery store or certain restaurants. In the last 5 years, the strip mall a couple blocks from my house has changed all of the signage..there is not one building nor sign written in English. At times I feel like an interloper in my own neighborhood.

Scary how quickly it happens isn't it?

 

[Scaff]

Excellent news, can change that to "was a lot more focused". Unfortunately ask anyone from my era (school leaver 2000-2005) about British history and you'll get blank stares. We simply weren't taught it, and instead forced a load of civil rights/cold war history (I actually still have my history exercise books) . What you've linked to is the result of Gove's reforms - someone so good at saving the education system from itself he was universally reviled by the Teaching Unions:

Gove had bugger all to do with that in any way, reforms to history to include a greater emphasis on British history were proposed and introduced before 2010.

https://centres.exeter.ac.uk/historyresource/journal10/papers/freeman.pdf

And I'm well aware of the impart Gove has had on education, my wife has been a teacher/lecturer in schools and colleges for over 15 years and I've worked in private sector education for near twenty years.

Gove's pet project on 'Free' schools has been one of the single most damaging things to happen to UK education since the changes to financial management of schools under Blair. The free schools initiative has been directly responsible for the rise in substandard faith based education in the UK, and as an adult educator in the private technical sector I am dreading having to deal with the resulting fall out in standards of pupils leaving those establishments and entering the workforce.

That however has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.

Scary how quickly it happens isn't it?

You do know that member is American? You know from the country you said hadn't faced the same cultural change through migration that the UK and EU had?

 

[niky]

Encouraged doesn't mean forced.

They created an artificial demand for immigrants through incentives. This far different from immigration that naturally occurs simply because one place is more desirable to live in than another.

And that is where they shall remain

Because nothing ever changes? Really? Even with the immigration of migrant workers to the Middle East, the spread of Western culture and the fact that women are now allowed more rights there than in the past?

Because if that's your line, I'd have to question any assertion you make stating that the situation will change in the West.

Huh? That's not the Hasidic community

Just for giggles, how big a part of the Jewish community do you think the Hasidic Jews (who do exist in the US) make?

There's a reason many Muslim women can walk around without full-face veils, and sometimes in non-traditional (except for the obligatory headscarf, which is about as concealing as a baseball cap) garb in some predominantly Muslim countries.

Neither culture is monolithic, and using a subset of each as an example of what the majority desires ignores this.

Using it as an analogy for US opening the borders, or a hospital dramatically lowering standards (of which a lot of NHS hospitals are doing funnily enough).

As it stands now many third-world doctors aspire to work in the US, but don't end up practising there simply due to the effort required. In my scenario, someone that isn't the owner of the hospital allows them to practice there by freeing the entry route.

For one, you'd have to answer what immigration has to do with lowering NHS standards. Which have more to do with budgetary restraints and systemic issues than the quality of the doctors themselves.

Because, again, as a part-owner of a medical school, I have to question what you know about healthcare and medical licensing. No country is ever going to lower its licensing requirements. In any case, medical professionals moving between countries have to pass the required licensure examinations and requirements. It's not as simple as "importing doctors". In fact, many nursing practitioners in the United States are grossly overqualified, simply because you can make so much money there as a nurse, third-world doctors would rather fall back on their Nursing bachelor degree and practice there than stay in their home country to practice medicine.

-

I laughed (perhaps more than I should have) when I watched "Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs" and Manny the Cameraman declared:

"I am also a doctor"

Because it's oh so true.

-

You can easily have a mass influx of doctors without affecting medical care quality in a negative way. The stiff competition for slots in the United States means that only the best doctors will get hired... and with millions of doctors in impoverished countries who might fancy a go at practicing in the Land of the Free, there's a huge pool to pick from.

 

[KSaiyu]

Gove had bugger all to do with that in any way, reforms to history to include a greater emphasis on British history were proposed and introduced before 2010.

https://centres.exeter.ac.uk/historyresource/journal10/papers/freeman.pdf

And I'm well aware of the impart Gove has had on education, my wife has been a teacher/lecturer in schools and colleges for over 15 years and I've worked in private sector education for near twenty years.

Gove's pet project on 'Free' schools has been one of the single most damaging things to happen to UK education since the changes to financial management of schools under Blair. The free schools initiative has been directly responsible for the rise in substandard faith based education in the UK, and as an adult educator in the private technical sector I am dreading having to deal with the resulting fall out in standards of pupils leaving those establishments and entering the workforce.

That however has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.

I'd love to debate this, but not here. I can't see how the push for more free schools was a bad thing so I'd love to hear the other side of the argument.

You do know that member is American? You know from the country you said hadn't faced the same cultural change through migration that the UK and EU had?

America hasn't. His area/town certainly has. That is what we have in common.

They created an artificial demand for immigrants through incentives. This far different from immigration that naturally occurs simply because one place is more desirable to live in than another.

Is it different - yes. Is it forced, i.e. is it the same as the Atlantic slave route - no.

Because nothing ever changes? Really? Even with the immigration of migrant workers to the Middle East, the spread of Western culture and the fact that women are now allowed more rights there than in the past?

Because if that's your line, I'd have to question any assertion you make stating that the situation will change in the West.

Naturally it would. The Middle East is dominated by a religion that views women as subservient, and a push for equal rights would have to come from both sexes. Such a push happening is relatively zilch unless there is a major reformation in Islam akin to what happened to Christianity, which is again a very unlikely scenario.

Just for giggles, how big a part of the Jewish community do you think the Hasidic Jews (who do exist in the US) make?

There's a reason many Muslim women can walk around without full-face veils, and sometimes in non-traditional (except for the obligatory headscarf, which is about as concealing as a baseball cap) garb in some predominantly Muslim countries.

Neither culture is monolithic, and using a subset of each as an example of what the majority desires ignores this.

I think there's some confusion here. I used that as an example of what could happen given a large enough demographic shift:

This can change with a large enough demographic shift. We now have parts of North London trying to ban women from driving. Can you imagine if there was a massive surge of Hasidic Jews into London - enough to influence the upcoming mayoral elections?

For one, you'd have to answer what immigration has to do with lowering NHS standards. Which have more to do with budgetary restraints and systemic issues than the quality of the doctors themselves.

Must. Resist. Urge. For. Soapbox.

I'll stick to the analogy (because if you check my post history you'll soon find my opinions on the matter) but if you want evidence, go here, look up each file concentrating on "Summary of Outcome". Find the ones that are either suspended or struck off and look at their a) Name or b) Primary Medical Qualification. Now compare those with foreign sounding names or Primary Medical Qualifications from a foreign medical school to the number of people who have either English sounding names or have a Primary Medical Qualification from a British Medical school.

Because, again, as a part-owner of a medical school, I have to question what you know about healthcare and medical licensing. No country is ever going to lower its licensing requirements. In any case, medical professionals moving between countries have to pass the required licensure examinations and requirements. It's not as simple as "importing doctors". In fact, many nursing practitioners in the United States are grossly overqualified, simply because you can make so much money there as a nurse, third-world doctors would rather fall back on their Nursing bachelor degree and practice there than stay in their home country to practice medicine.

Not in the NHS - but I'll stick to the analogy for reasons I said before (I'm happy to take it to an appropriate thread if you want). The analogy was that US General was the USA and the AHS was the EU. At the moment the US can be relatively selective with its immigrants - both in terms of quantity and what's expected of them. Britain doesn't have this. Here is a story from today:

The number of Romanians given the right to work in Britain soared by more than 200 per cent to over 150,000 people in the year after curbs on them entering the job market were lifted.

Official government figures also show that the number of Bulgarian migrants who gained the same right to work after the transitional controls imposed under an EU treaty ended jumped by more than 120 per cent.

A total of 152,360 Romanians and 40,580 Bulgarians were allocated a government registration enabling them to work as thousands took advantage of access to all jobs in Britain for the first time since both states joined the EU in 2004.

The 223 per cent increase in Romanian applications means that nearly one in five national insurance registrations issued to adults from overseas in the year to the end of March went to a migrant from the country.

Alp Mehmet, the vice-chairman of MigrationWatchUK, which campaigns for lower immigration, said: “It is a huge number and it shows this country is a magnet for migrants.

“We are a magnet for poor people whose circumstances are woefully below ours and are totally wretched. That is the reason why people are looking for a country where their lives can significantly improve.”

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4460047.ece

In the analogy, US General was forced to take in doctors and nurses from around the world because of an organisation they didn't elect but has power over them (EU and Britain). This overwhelms US General, who now suffers from a massive influx of lower skilled staff - kind of like this story:

Three quarters of immigrants from ten east European countries are working in low-skilled jobs, according to a report published today.

Almost half of them are in the lowest skilled jobs such as cleaning, food processing, crop-picking and serving in restaurants and cafés. This partially explains why the surge in migration from eastern Europe is expected to have a negligible impact on gross domestic product per head of population, the report by Migration Watch UK said.

“East European workers have a very good reputation for their work ethic but the fact that they are so overwhelmingly in low-skilled work raises real questions about their value to the UK economy,” he said. “Meanwhile, they add considerably to the pressure on public services.”

Migration Watch’s analysis said that early last year 630,000 of 870,00 immigrants from ten east European countries, including Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania and Bulgaria, were in low-skilled work; 320,000 of them in the very lowest-skilled jobs

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/economics/article4445248.ece

The Board of Directors resembles our politics, and is at the moment in Britain confined to a very few number of local areas:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...oo-many-on-the-left-fell-for-it-10199238.html

* The Times articles I'm copy/pasting aren't the full articles since I don't think I'm allowed to post full articles from subscription sites.

 

[Scaff]

America hasn't. His area/town certainly has. That is what we have in common.

So if its happening only in certain towns/areas then it can't be affecting the whole country. Got you.

So explain again how this is affecting the UK/EU? Migration levels are well below that of the US on a per head basis and its also only in certain areas of the country? Or are you claiming that this is happening in every part of the UK?

You seem to be (unsurprisingly) operating very different standards here, given that what you just acknowledge for the member in question was exactly what you described for the UK/EU.

 

[dylansan]

One thing to keep in mind about the situation in towns like that is, it's not as if the people that use to live there suddenly vanished or all died or moved out of the country. More than likely, they simply found somewhere better/cheaper to live and are still as much a part of the country as they always were, not to mention increasing the percentage of their demographic in whatever place they moved to.

It would take quite a large number of people to overcome the current status quo and replace it with something entirely different. Theoretically, you'd need the number of immigrants to match the number of residents already here, though of course changes would occur before that point. And as @Danoff said, you can't assume the people moving here have an agenda opposite the current structure of the country.

For one thing, Sharia law will not be happenning any time soon in America barring the mass exodus of millions of the Americans who would strongly object to it. If anything, a Christian based law structure would be more likely, as backlash against the increasing secularism of the country. Though I don't really expect that either.

 

[niky]

Is it different - yes. Is it forced, i.e. is it the same as the Atlantic slave route - no.

Is it the same as US or UK immigration? No.

Is it artificially induced? Yes.

Naturally it would. The Middle East is dominated by a religion that views women as subservient, and a push for equal rights would have to come from both sexes. Such a push happening is relatively zilch unless there is a major reformation in Islam akin to what happened to Christianity, which is again a very unlikely scenario.

Because, again, the change that is happening right now means... nothing? We could circle this all night. I am not a fan of Islam, but even those walls are not insurmountable.

Also, I would love to know what great religious reformation paved the way for minority and women's rights in the US, because last I looked, it was a social, rather than religious thing.

And it was a very recent thing. The reason my mother consented to moving out here, when the pay was better in New York, was that professional advancement as a woman working in the 1960's in a very male-dominated, mysoginistic work place, was nearly non-existent. It's only in recent years that women have become as powerful as they are now... and it's still not a universal given that they will get the same opportunities as men in certain professions in the US.

I think there's some confusion here. I used that as an example of what could happen given a large enough demographic shift:

This can change with a large enough demographic shift. We now have parts of North London trying to ban women from driving. Can you imagine if there was a massive surge of Hasidic Jews into London - enough to influence the upcoming mayoral elections?

The "ban" is not supported by all Hasidic Jews, and there are rabbis who oppose them. I'd go more into the "not all Jews are Hasidic", too, but I covered that earlier.

Must. Resist. Urge. For. Soapbox.

I'll stick to the analogy (because if you check my post history you'll soon find my opinions on the matter) but if you want evidence, go here, look up each file concentrating on "Summary of Outcome". Find the ones that are either suspended or struck off and look at their a) Name or b) Primary Medical Qualification. Now compare those with foreign sounding names or Primary Medical Qualifications from a foreign medical school to the number of people who have either English sounding names or have a Primary Medical Qualification from a British Medical school.

Very scientific approach. Let me know when you have statistics. And please cross-reference years of practice in the UK, age of each doctor, and try to find cases relating to professional issues rather than ethical misconduct. Because, so far, I haven't found one case that is the result of poor academic preparation. (it's a lot of data)

All I can tell from the above, and through a brief reading of cases, is that male doctors are potential sexual predators, whatever country they're from.

Not in the NHS - but I'll stick to the analogy for reasons I said before (I'm happy to take it to an appropriate thread if you want). The analogy was that US General was the USA and the AHS was the EU. At the moment the US can be relatively selective with its immigrants - both in terms of quantity and what's expected of them.

Interestingly, on one last note... Foreign doctors in the UK need to meet the same qualifications, whether they're from inside or outside the EU, from what I can glean from the official site. The only difference is VISA requirements for non-EU doctors.

The number of Romanians given the right to work in Britain soared by more than 200 per cent to over 150,000 people in the year after curbs on them entering the job market were lifted.

Official government figures also show that the number of Bulgarian migrants who gained the same right to work after the transitional controls imposed under an EU treaty ended jumped by more than 120 per cent.

A total of 152,360 Romanians and 40,580 Bulgarians were allocated a government registration enabling them to work as thousands took advantage of access to all jobs in Britain for the first time since both states joined the EU in 2004.

The 223 per cent increase in Romanian applications means that nearly one in five national insurance registrations issued to adults from overseas in the year to the end of March went to a migrant from the country.

Alp Mehmet, the vice-chairman of MigrationWatchUK, which campaigns for lower immigration, said: “It is a huge number and it shows this country is a magnet for migrants.

“We are a magnet for poor people whose circumstances are woefully below ours and are totally wretched. That is the reason why people are looking for a country where their lives can significantly improve.”

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4460047.ece

In the analogy, US General was forced to take in doctors and nurses from around the world because of an organisation they didn't elect but has power over them (EU and Britain). This overwhelms US General, who now suffers from a massive influx of lower skilled staff - kind of like this story:

A faulty analogy made even faultier. Because of this:

“East European workers have a very good reputation for their work ethic but the fact that they are so overwhelmingly in low-skilled work raises real questions about their value to the UK economy,” he said. “Meanwhile, they add considerably to the pressure on public services.”

These workers are unskilled, but come in to work because there are unskilled job openings to be filled. I won't deny that they add pressure to social services, because their income is so marginal, that's a given.

But migrating health workers, are, by definition, skilled workers, trained for their jobs. Even at the most massive influx (In previous decades, chronic shortages of health workers has led to massive migration to the US and UK...), the pool of potential candidates has always been big enough that US and UK hospitals had their pick of the best ones, while the others failed to make it through.

Interestingly, only 60% or so of British doctors graduated in the UK, and only 40% or so are White British.

http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/register/search_stats.asp

And I'm betting a great number of those are older doctors and more established practitioners, who are less likely to be summoned for complaints. The demographic shift (aging population) and the lack of British and American health practitioners is what fuels the massive influx of foreign health workers. We don't export health professionals to push out American/British workers. We export them because the US/UK don't produce enough locally to meet demand.

-

Uh. Good luck matching ethnicity statistics to your tribunal findings.

The Board of Directors resembles our politics, and is at the moment in Britain confined to a very few number of local areas:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...oo-many-on-the-left-fell-for-it-10199238.html

* The Times articles I'm copy/pasting aren't the full articles since I don't think I'm allowed to post full articles from subscription sites.

Don't see what that has to do with immigration, though it is an interesting topic in and of itself.

From same article, however:

There are many Muslim politicians in Britain who do a fine job; the vast majority of whom would never dream of behaving in the disgraceful manner of Lutfur Rahman.

It's a good idea to recognize issues, but jumping to conclusions and drawing vast generalizations based on incomplete data leads to a flawed analysis of the situation.