jump to content
my subreddits
more »
Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds.|
[-]
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
subreddit:subreddit
find submissions in "subreddit"
author:username
find submissions by "username"
site:example.com
find submissions from "example.com"
url:text
search for "text" in url
selftext:text
search for "text" in self post contents
self:yes (or self:no)
include (or exclude) self posts
nsfw:yes (or nsfw:no)
include (or exclude) results marked as NSFW
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
this post was submitted on
33 points (86% upvoted)
shortlink:
reset password

ukpolitics

subscribeunsubscribe40,506 readers
200 users here now
Political articles and debate concerning the United Kingdom.
Anything not specifically concerning politics in the UK or geopolitics involving the UK will be considered spam and removed.
While robust debate is encouraged, at least try to keep things civil. This sub is for people with a wide variety of views, and as such you will come across content, views and people you don't agree with. Political views from a wide spectrum are tolerated here.
Articles from The Times and other paywall sites should be rehosted, though credit should be given. Direct links to behind a paywall will be considered spam and removed.

Rules

  • Reddiquette
  • Subscribe to participate in voting.
  • Headline titles should be changed only where it improves clarity. Headline changes that introduce editorialization or rhetoric will be removed. Please express your personal opinion in the comments, not the headline
  • If you want to discuss a specific point of an article rather than the article itself then please use a self post for this.
  • Articles which are older than 12 months should be tagged with the month and year of publishing.
  • All polls submitted should be in the form of a self post, not a link.
  • Submissions or comments complaining about the moderation of other subreddits will be removed.
  • Do not use URL shorteners.
  • No meme posts
  • Submitting your own content is perfectly fine, but make it clear that it's your own content, don't take the piss, and read the site wide guidance on self promotion written by the admins.
  • Pointless "DAE hate <party name> scum!?" comments and submissions will be removed.
  • Flair should not contain links. Links in flair will be deleted without warning, repeat offenders will be banned
  • If you see racism, please report it.
  • Taking issue with immigration policy is not racist by default.
  • Moderation questions/concerns will only be dealt with via mod mail.
  • If you report something, please tell us why you reported it. If it's a serious problem, please contact the moderation team and remember to include a link.
  • If your post vanishes or never shows up, please contact the moderation team and remember to include a link.
  • Mime artists are strictly forbidden.
  • These rules are not exhaustive, moderators reserve the right to moderate (or not) where it is felt to be appropriate.

You may also be interested in:

Political
Other

Election Archive

a community for
No problem. We won't show you that ad again. Why didn't you like it?
Oops! I didn't mean to do this.
all 75 comments-
[–]Jotun90wants to live in a hut in the woods 24 points25 points26 points  (15 children)
Not surprising given immigration numbers. Of course this will likely be painted as 'everyone's a racist' or 'everyone's selfish', but the truth is people are sick to death of the astronomical immigration figures and want them controlled. If our immigration was at a reasonable level I don't think we would have any qualms about taking in refugees - the figure would likely be higher than 20k too.
[–]madeinacton [score hidden]  (5 children)
Its stupid, to give you an idea of the numbers once dispersed my town of 80,000 people will take 20 refugees a year, which is above capita compared to others. It's hardly going to cripple our infrastructure and bankrupt us.
[–]200-7 [score hidden]  (0 children)
You mean the number for this one specific instance of immigration? In case you didn't realize - net migration stands at hundreds of thousands a year. Perhaps that's is the root of people's concerns?
Having visited numerous schools from London and it's surrounding areas I have made my mind up. Visit a typical primary/secondary school in Slough/Houslow/Birmingham and it will blow your mind.
[–]danimir [score hidden]  (2 children)
Sadly, it seems like over half of the country is stupid.
[–]jahansdaman [score hidden]  (0 children)
It's not this one instance people are concerned about, its just this is yet another influx of immigrants were having. There's nothing stupid about noticing the rapid pace of change in certain areas.
[–]walgman [score hidden]  (0 children)
My area is 48% foreign now. The original population is nearly half gone. It's sad because most of the new arrivals are from India, Somalia, Pakistan, Nigeria and even Afghanistan. Not people you want as neighbours believe me, especially if your female or gay.
I want to leave now myself.
[–]orwellsocietyguy 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
What do you consider a reasonable level?
[–]Jotun90wants to live in a hut in the woods 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
Personally I think it should be tied to job opportunity, outflow and foreign students (in a less ridiculous university system), so its hard to actually name a figure as a target. If we're setting targets I don't think theres much justification for net immigration higher than 100k a year. Pre-Blair it bounced around the 25-75k net a year mark. 2014 it was 318k.
[–]shunt31http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/survey/results/540A080726359 [score hidden]  (6 children)
[–]Jotun90wants to live in a hut in the woods [score hidden]  (0 children)
No one is arguing that immigrants are not an economic boon. In fact, we can't have a discussion about the subject without that being brought up: this does nothing to correct cultural or societal problems. A boost to the economy does little to nothing to solve the problem of inner city ghettos, police forces unwilling to investigate particular ethnic groups for fear of being called racist, the increase in the level of hate crimes & marches to the slogan "British soldiers burn in hell". Unless immigration and integration is set at a pace that we can manage, it is not worth the extra cash or skills unless they are in vital sectors.
In my opinion, of course.
[–]Pallas_Just a plain, no-nonsense, old-fashioned Tory. [score hidden]  (2 children)
You're making the mistake of arguing for migration from a purely economic perspective.
Plus migrants from Africa and the Middle East are a net drain.
[–]walgman [score hidden]  (0 children)
The majority of British Muslims don't have a job.
[–]shunt31http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/survey/results/540A080726359 [score hidden]  (0 children)
I wasn't arguing for migration; I was saying what people think about migrants and the economy is wrong.
Source on that claim?
[–]taboo__time [score hidden]  (1 child)
I can believe the a higher population grows the economy. I'm skeptical it helps the local poor competing for jobs and housing. The depression of wages based on increased labour.
It can seem like the progressive left and right asking the local poor to face economic and cultural dislocation for the short term gain of the rich and moral worthiness of the left.
Isn't there stack of economic reports that point to the economic truth of all kinds of far right economics?
Is this a free market libertarian economic position? Kind of if there were no borders and all economic units were free to move we would be better off?
It can seem like a cold economic decision taken by temporarily interrupted UN peace ambassadors.
[–]shunt31http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/survey/results/540A080726359 [score hidden]  (0 children)
I can believe the a higher population grows the economy. I'm skeptical it helps the local poor competing for jobs and housing. The depression of wages based on increased labour.
A larger population will be able to produce more, and so will increase GDP (that's what GDP is, the total amount of final goods produced in a country), I didn't say it helps the local poor, I said it helps the economy as a whole, with the amount it helps each person depending on who the person is, and their circumstances - didn't you look at the Borjas papers? That's what he says, and what the whole point of my Kaldor-Hicks stuff at the bottom is about.
It can seem like the progressive left and right asking the local poor to face economic and cultural dislocation for the short term gain of the rich and moral worthiness of the left.
I don't know where you're pulling that from. That is totally unfounded. It's not at all relevant.
Isn't there stack of economic reports that point to the economic truth of all kinds of far right economics?
Yes, there is. Here, too. You'll see that it was downvoted on /r/UK as well; it seems people don't like being told economics doesn't confirm their priors, whether it's on /r/UK or /r/UKpolitics.
I don't know why you implied this was all far-left stuff. Economists agree on much more than the public realise - look through that IGM Chicago page. They aren't really all that ideological.
Kind of if there were no borders and all economic units were free to move we would be better off?
Borders aren't great for any input or output, capital, labour, goods or services, in general. I like to think that farmers can grow more with a tractor than with a spade.
[–]ShitfacePhil 6 points7 points8 points  (10 children)
Government policy was shifted in a day by a bunch of twitter hashtaggers and sensitive newspaper editors. A photo of a dead baby means we have accepted people from Syrian camps, in almost no way helping prevent people from continuing to make the journey to Europe.
The rest of us who don't want to accept these refugees are just ignored by a political class that are eager to placate the permanently outraged, and paint them as the majority.
The elephant in the room is that, at a time when Europe is facing massive security threats from Islamic fundamentalists, Merkel is continuing to usher in hundreds of thousands of Muslims into Europe, thus permanently transforming the continent. It seems so nonsensical, so against conventional wisdom, but there is no room for such sentiments among the babyboomer left that must rescue lives at any cost, even to European civilisation.
This won't be the last of them that we accept. The UN predicts over a million more migrants to Europe over the next two years. It's the issue that has convinced me to vote to leave the EU in our referendum.
[–]orwellsocietyguy 2 points3 points4 points  (9 children)
Germany is accepting people because it desperately needs them. They have millions of Turkish people as well. It's losing people fast and the population is set to drop by 10 million if they don't do something about it.
Report after report shows that the vast majority of immigrants in to Germany set up small businesses and integrate perfectly well in to society.
How you get the 'massive security threats' and thousands of Muslims fleeing war tied up in a knot I don't know. I think you just made that up.
[–]ShitfacePhil 4 points5 points6 points  (5 children)
Germany is accepting people because
I don't care if Germany needs more people. Allowing them into Germany gives them an opportunity to continue on to the rest of Europe. By suggesting you'll accept 800k people you provide an incentive for even more people to make the journey.
How you get the 'massive security threats' and thousands of Muslims fleeing war tied up in a knot
Ignoring the potential for militants to sneak into Europe, a higher Muslim population will inevitably lead to a larger security threat in the long-run.
[–]orwellsocietyguy [score hidden]  (4 children)
gives them an opportunity to continue on to the rest of Europe.
eh?
a higher Muslim population will inevitably lead to a larger security threat in the long-run.
Hmm. Not sure where you get this from. It's not like Germany hasn't been accepting Muslim immigrants since the wall fell. In case you forgot the place was a hell hole then. The German economy is extremely stable. It's Muslim population is about 2-4% (depending on who you ask). If militants could 'sneak' in to Germany then why haven't they done so far? The idea Muslim terror is somehow an issue is kind of hilarious. In the past 20 years the total number of terrorist deaths in Germany is THREE from two incidents. Two of those deaths were from a Kosovan terrorist. There's less than 2 million Kosovans, there's 1.6 Billion Muslims.
Every day 125 people die in Germany from smoking related diseases making tobacco companies approximately 300,000 times more dangerous. Do we have to be 300,000 times more reactionary towards them?
[–]ShitfacePhil [score hidden]  (1 child)
You're all over the place right now.
There's a threat to European society posed by hardline Islamic fundamentalist cultures that have slowly taken root. They pose both an immediate threat to our safety as well as a long term one. You're mass importing people from the Muslim world in the hope that they eventually grow up to shun these Islamic values and instead embrace secularism.
Merkel, Cameron and Sarkozy all made speeches about the failure of multiculturalism a few years back. Cameron specifically made mention to the Muslim community in our country. How can you look at the difficulties we have faced on this issue in Europe and think that we're actually capable of settling an extra million newcomers? We cannot do it, the people do not want us to do it, yet the European elites are incessant on overriding our opinion on this issue.
In the past 20 years the total number of terrorist deaths in Germany is THREE from two incidents
Three thanks to the hard work of the security services who are pushed to the limits of their capabilities as it is. Find some statistics for the amount of attacks that have been foiled. Here's a story from Germany just five months ago:
German police have stopped an Islamist terror attack, possibly targeting a cycling race attended by thousands every year in Frankfurt. Officers arrested a couple with suspected militant links after the husband was spotted buying large amounts of bomb-making chemicals, Frankfurt's chief prosecutor Albrecht Schreiber told a news conference. They found a functioning pipe bomb, an assault rifle, 100 rounds of ammunition, three litres of hydrogen peroxide, and other chemicals used for explosives in their home in Oberursel, near Frankfurt, he said. The 35-year-old man held has dual Turkish-German citizenship and a criminal record, said police. His Turkish wife, 34, was also arrested.
It's irrelevant to me if somebody decides to smoke. It's their own body. It's not irrelevant to me when European politicians continue the process of mass Islamic immigration into the society in which I live. I am seemingly powerless to prevent this.
The heart of this issue is that this entire situation IS avoidable. We do not have to accept so many of these refugees. We can do what the Aussies have done and make it clear that there will be large scale settlement here in Europe. Instead Merkel is going to accommodate these people against the wishes of the German people, whilst blackmailing the Eastern European states into accepting them too (because fuck them, right?).
I like that the Orwell Society Guy is in firm agreement with the European elite, the UN and Goldman Sachs on this issue btw.
[–]orwellsocietyguy [score hidden]  (0 children)
Why because a book club is also a threat to society?
[–]jahansdaman [score hidden]  (1 child)
The idea Muslim terror is somehow an issue is kind of hilarious.
Please explain how 7/7, 9/11, the Madrid bombings, etc. are not an issue.
Please explain why GCHQ and MI5 would take a non-issue so seriously.
Please explain why the government has seriously tightened security laws precisely because of (at the very least in the name of) this non-issue.
[–]orwellsocietyguy [score hidden]  (0 children)
None of those things happened in Germany. I love the way you manage to cherry pick something, apply it to a different situation then wrap it up in hyperbole. It's quite an art.
[–]DamascusProdigy [score hidden]  (2 children)
The idea that Germany needs to import millions of culturally incompatible Muslims to solve it's demographic issues is just outright insanity. So you import these people for their labour value to pay for the welfare for the elderly and in 50 years time your country is majority Muslim and gay rights and women's rights have been repealed and white people are left as a subjugated minority. Great choice, sacrificing your culture and homeland is a fair price to pay for a few million labourers. This is ' the price of everything and the value of nothing' thinking.
There are innumerable ways that Germany could increase its population without committing cultural suicide, including tax incentives to encourage fertility, or repeals on welfare for the elderly. Even if they literally did nothing and their population dwindled down to 10 million over the next 500 years that would still be superior to surrendering their homeland to people who are largely hostile to and in direct conflict with the majority of their cultural values.
[–]orwellsocietyguy [score hidden]  (1 child)
Your funny and your ideas are daft. Germany is doing fine without your idiocy. I think we'll leave them to it.
[–]DamascusProdigy [score hidden]  (0 children)
You're a short sighted idealist. Germany's current level of migration leads to the STATISTICAL INEVITABILITY of them becoming majority Muslim before the turn of the century. This isn't an opinion, it's an extrapolation based on current trends.
Good luck maintaining women's rights and gay rights with a Muslim majority. People like yourself think you're all enlightened and moral for not being like the daft paranoiacs like me, the reality is that you have your head in the clouds and will be the sort of person hated by your descendents for the fate you are resigning themy to.
You really think you can keep liberalism with a Muslim majority? Get real.
[–]Cameron94Burkean-Whig [score hidden]  (1 child)
If we actually had control over our immigration figures instead of contacting out that responsibility beyond accountability and control then people, on the whole, would be more willing to accept genuine refugees.
But hey, there's me advocating Britain should controls its borders (like almost every country in the world does) which would be racist and uncivilised!!
[–]StormyBA [score hidden]  (0 children)
dirty racist! open boarders for all!!
[–]pickledhappy 7 points8 points9 points  (33 children)
Only mentally ill or genocidal people want more immigrants. I'll take genuine refugees on a swap for some illegals basis.
[–]oliethefolieProsecco Socialist 5 points6 points7 points  (14 children)
Genocidal?
[–]Leetenghui 5 points6 points7 points  (10 children)
Just a side note the Middle East is in the throes of a massive water crisis which will peak around 2025 and not get better. Therefore there will be about 200 million people with a high fertility rate all looking for a home.
Asia will tell them to fuck off, China right now keeps asylum seekers in prison camps. Africa is undesirable. So where will they go?
[–]Aspley_HeathAbsolutely Disgusting -1 points0 points1 point  (9 children)
Middle East is in the throes of a massive water crisis which will peak around 2025 and not get better.
sauce?
[–]FMN2014Eurosceptic Liberal Democrat | -2.13, -3.64 4 points5 points6 points  (4 children)
[–]Aspley_HeathAbsolutely Disgusting 3 points4 points5 points  (3 children)
Damn they need to start curbing fertility rates right now and start investing in water-recycling technologies. I'll be damned if any of these water-refugees gets into Britain.
[–]cliffmaster [score hidden]  (0 children)
Damn they need to start curbing fertility rates right now
B-But the magic book said to have lots of children, surely the man in the sky couldn't lead us astray?
[–]Leetenghui 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
Fat chance, the decades of cheap oil and low energy cost meant they could piss it away with grass lawns in the desert. Hell right now Saudi has these strange round farms in the middle of the desert which take up enormous amounts of water to run.
No water = no food either.
[–]jahansdaman [score hidden]  (0 children)
To be fair to them those weird circle farms are just a way of growing vegetation in arid environments. The USA has them too.
[–]Leetenghui 0 points1 point2 points  (3 children)
note where the deepest red places are. Northern China is building a massive south north water project and tons of desalination plants.
[–]Aspley_HeathAbsolutely Disgusting 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
a shame where so many people insist on living in the desert
[–]Leetenghui 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
You can live in the desert IF you plan appropriately. Turpan for instance 1000 years ago they build underwater aqueducts from the mountains (I mean about 50 miles away).
China built the mostly gravity fed south north water project. Gadaffi built the fossil aquifer system which was destroyed in 2011 after taking 20 years to build.
But the Saudis were kind of short termist.
[–]Leetenghui 6 points7 points8 points  (2 children)
Yes genocide. China for instance. China has been committing soft genocide against Tibetans and Inner Mongolians (BTW before you say it Tibet was not exactly paradise before the Chinese communists and it was a terrible place to live if you were not a lama, slavery and feudalism was a real thing in Tibet before the communists).
Anyway back to the point China genocided the population by importing Han families and giving them lots of money to breed like crazy. As a result after 65 years the Tibet people are a MINORITY in Tibet compared to the Han. Exactly the same thing happened in Inner Mongolia.
Therefore any votes for self determination if they were to ever be held will never gain popular support.
My own family line are genocide victims. It happened around 200 years ago. We welcomed migrants, 60 years later the migrants with a much higher birth rate than us realised they out numbered us 7-1. They then decided to exterminate us and steal our land.
The current migrants to the UK are mostly Muslims. From countries which have high fertility rates. Middle East for instance averages around 3.2-4 per woman. A Somalian woman I encountered had 11 children, her sister who also came had 8 children. I used to meet people like this every day.
Back in the 90s I remember being in a mixed school of white and Pakistanis. The Pakistanis came from families with 10+ children. It was unusual for one of my peers to have small numbers of children. The Chinese families (3 in the school) had 2 at most. The biggest white family was 3 children. We've all grown up and are mid 30s now. The area where I grew up is about 15 miles away. I've been back and many of them have 5-7 children each. So the old argument of once they are educated more the fertility rate declines to match the native population. Except it doesn't in some communities. As said I was a child in the 80s and 90s. By the 90s it was the 2nd generation of overseas born parents. We've had 3rd and 4th generations and the birth rate isn't declining. In 2001 there were 1.5 million Muslims. By 2012 there were 2.8 million. So we can assume a doubling every 10 years. On this basis 2022 - 6 million then a doubling every 10 years. By 2035-2050 they will be the majority and the UK will be a sharia law state.
[–]Chazmer87 -3 points-2 points-1 points  (1 child)
Genocide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group.
Did anyone kill the natives in the UK? where is your home country where you were part of a genocide?
[–]SeyStoneI am a Tory, not a Conservative. [score hidden]  (0 children)
Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
That's the UN definiton (although I don't think I would personally call what's happening in the UK a 'genocide').
[–]isometimesweartweed 6 points7 points8 points  (11 children)
The reason why you turn off people from having a rational debate about immigration, or even refugees is because you're using vitriolic language like that.
I don't want to open the borders at all, but I would like this country to be welcoming to skilled immigrants.
There is a fucking vast middle ground between open borders with the world, and closed borders with the world. And painting the debate as anyone wanting any amount of immigration as mentally ill is just ridiculous.
[–]LimitlessLTDCivic Nationalist | EU Federalist & Churchillian 6 points7 points8 points  (5 children)
Welcome to /r/UKpolitics, where any views on immigration must be portrayed in black and white otherwise you're a stupid white-apologist or a stupid neo-nazi.
Everybody loses!
[–]FMN2014Eurosceptic Liberal Democrat | -2.13, -3.64 [score hidden]  (4 children)
It's better than /r/europe.
[–]LimitlessLTDCivic Nationalist | EU Federalist & Churchillian [score hidden]  (3 children)
4 months ago I would have strongly disagreed, but at present you are 100% right. The place is a shit hole when talking about immigration, I try and avoid anything even vaguely related to the subject when on /r/Europe. But I think as a sub purely dedicated to politics (and therefore civil discourse) this one should be the more balanced of the two anyway.
[–]EmilioRebenga [score hidden]  (0 children)
/u/FMN2014 and /u/LimitlessLTD why is this the case that r/Europe is so bad?
I havn't been on there so thought I'd just find out your opinions. Is it ridiculously anti-immigration or something?
[–]FMN2014Eurosceptic Liberal Democrat | -2.13, -3.64 [score hidden]  (1 child)
I try and avoid anything even vaguely related to the subject when on /r/Europe.
So 3/4 of /r/europe's front page. Yeah I do the same thing.
[–]LimitlessLTDCivic Nationalist | EU Federalist & Churchillian [score hidden]  (0 children)
Basically :(
[–]shunt31http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/survey/results/540A080726359 [score hidden]  (4 children)
Immigration in general is a good thing economically. In fact, read the third paper I link there. You won't like it.
[–]DamascusProdigy [score hidden]  (1 child)
Immigrants from Africa and the Middle East are a net drain. And this is only economically, what if we talk about culturally?
Go and look up the statistics for the percentages of people who believe in gay rights and women's rights in the Middle East and Africa. You won't like them. Then again you probably don't care, you'd be more than happy to invite millions of people into the country who are in their majority against gay rights and women's rights as long as we increase GDP by a couple percent and have a larger labour force.
You're a psychopath.
[–]shunt31http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/survey/results/540A080726359 [score hidden]  (0 children)
Source on that claim?
I'm aware of African, Arabian and Persian attitudes to gay people and women; the former isn't that far off from the attitudes of the ruling party in my country, who ran the "Save Ulster from Sodomy" campaign in the 20th century. Beliefs in those regions are similar to our own from the past; NI and Ireland had to be brought to the ECHR to change the law on it.
I wasn't saying the economics are the sole reason from accepting or not accepting migrants, but that what people think about migration and the economy is wrong. Your putting words in my mouth.
There's no need to call names.
[–]isometimesweartweed [score hidden]  (1 child)
Sorry do you mean this one? Economics and Emigration: Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk? Why wouldn't I like it?
[–]shunt31http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/survey/results/540A080726359 [score hidden]  (0 children)
I did mean that one. I said that because you said "I don't want to open the borders at all", and I was aware of the reaction my post would get, as evident by the score of my comment.
[–]wongie comment score below threshold-7 points-6 points-5 points  (5 children)
Saying it's genocidal is as stupid as the right's supposed angst at being labelled racist by the left. By making it an issue of genocide then it makes it a matter of race.
[–]DamascusProdigy [score hidden]  (4 children)
Not every form of genocide involves gas chambers and campaigns of mass murder. The UN's definition of genocide includes the mention of 'conditions that are designed to bring about the end of the existence of an ethnic group'.
Importing millions of non-whites into the country who have birth rates up to 5 times that of white Britons, while simultaneously forcing white communities and groups to accept these people through mandatory diversity quotas and shaming language, all the while blathering on about how white people don't actually exist or have any culture of our own whereas everyone else does, are all mentalities that if enacted together would lead to the ethnic displacement of white Britons in their homeland and their eventual genocide by out breeding. Once a critical threshold of non-whites was reached it would be electorally impossible for white Britons to ever be represented unless by sympathetic non-whites backed by their electoral majority.
Despite what leftists tell people, ideas such as diversity, minority rights and tolerance are largely only believed in by white Westerners, Hispanics and East Asians, with whites being the most ardent supporters and originators of such ideas. There is no current evidence, either in the prevalent mentalities that we find in non-white African/Muslim cultures, or in the politics they have in their home nations, that suggests that a large or even a sizeable percentage of them hold such concepts as minority rights in any regard at all. Thus people also raise the possibility that when white Briton become a minority here, we will be actively subjugated by the non-whites and eventually, possibly physically exterminated.
This isn't baseless paranoia, as groups like ISIS have attempted the genocide of minority groups like the Yazidis. Now you can say that not all Muslims are genocidalists but they don't all have to be for them to take power. The majority of Syrians aren't genocidal maniacs and yet much of their country is controlled by people who are, because enough Muslims are genocidal maniacs for those who are to form a serious army and seize power.
Even if a physical genocide wasn't attempted here, the world that we are making for ourselves is going to be a horror. Germany has taken in 800,000 refugees this year alone, most of them Muslims. That's 5 times the number of native German births, and if they take in more refugees next year and the year after, when we factor in the fertility rate of these people, they are inviting upon themselves the statistical certainty that their country will become majority Muslim. The left wants us to take in similar numbers here.
Many on the left are indifferent to this or believe that a Muslim majority Germany or Britain would just be exactly the same but with people with darker skin. Yet if we look at what these people largely believe, there is no evidence that our culture will remain the same and every single piece of available evidence points to the fact that it will make our country demonstrably worse. The crime rate of refugees from these countries is absurdly high, with most of the violent crime aimed at white people. They are in their majority against Western notions of gay rights and women's rights, and notions of 'tolerating the minority' are totally alien to them. The only reason such concepts are present in their countries at all is by Western export. They haven't arrived at the same cultural conclusions as white Westerners mostly have and there's nothing in the world right now that leads me to believe that being a minority white population under a majority non-white/Muslim population would be anything other than outright subjugation and Dhimmitude. This is why we call it genocide.
The statistics cannot be argued. If Germany carries on at their current rate they will be majority non-white with Islam as the state religion within three generations. And they're doing this because of a picture of a dead Syrians boy? This is insanity. If you believe that being a minority white population under a Muslim plurality and non-white majority would be just fine and things would stay the same, I'd strongly ask for some evidence that that would actually be the case and isn't just a Utopian fantasy.
[–]wongie [score hidden]  (3 children)
You've spent a long time saying a whole lot of nothing that points to genocide. The argument of Muslims out breeding Europeans like rats is drivel, and you're right statistics cannot be argued, statistics that also show the birthrate of Muslim nations have dramatically declined themselves in the last several decades as much as half not to mention studies have shown that immigrant birthrates begin to fall immediately, even amongst immigrants who already have children, no matter where they come from.
I'm for a fortress Europe, I don't just need scare tactics to put it forward.
[–]DamascusProdigy [score hidden]  (2 children)
They're not scare tactics. The fertility rate of Muslims does not decline to a level similar to our own immediately, as evidenced by the fact that they still reproduce at a much higher rate than whites despite most of then having arrived a generation ago. And so what if it declines a bit.. oh they've gone from 4.2 children per family to 3.1. So we'll be a Muslim majority country in 80 years instead of 60.
These aren't scare tactics, it's our destiny. You're the nit picker that autistically needs to stress that were only going to become a minority in 80 years instead of 60 and therefore everything is fine, or that we can be ethnically displaced and eventually subjugated in our homeland by a hostile forsign force to the extent that we'd be completely democratically powerless and be completely at their whim, but we must not call it genocide because after all there aren't any gas chambers.
Stop being so autistic. The point is that large scale Muslim immigration will lead to Britain becoming majority Muslim within a few generations. Being at theach whim of a hostile invasive force in our own homeland, and not being able to do anything about it democraticallc, is tantamount to genocide by any meaningful definition. It is a lie of modernity that the only form of genocide is by direct mass murder.
[–]wongie [score hidden]  (1 child)
up to 5 times
800,000 refugees
That's 5 times
4.2 children per family to 3.1
80 years instead of 60
Me the nitpicking autistic one who hasn't even mentioned numbers at all? Besides if you're going to be claiming genocide then the least one can expect is nitpicking, that's how burden of proof works. Your arguments have been thrown about before and found simply inconclusive.
needs to stress that were only going to become a minority in 80 years instead of 60 and therefore everything is fine
And I never stressed that one bit.
[–]DamascusProdigy [score hidden]  (0 children)
If the left gets their way and we take in hundreds of thousands of refugees each year we will be majority non-white with Islam as the majority religion within 3 generations. Even if they don't get their way but the current levels of immigration are maintained we will be majority non-white within 60 years with Islam becoming the majority religion a few decades after that.
This will lead to the complete subjugation of the white population, and I say this based on the way that Muslims poll in regards to the concept of minority rights as well as the current treatment of minorities in Muslim countries. Women's rights and gay rights would be a thing of the past, the inter Islam conflicts would now be British conflicts and we'd see levels of terror attacks on par with a country like Syria. With the democratic majority in the hands of Muslims there would be a serious threat of Islamist maniacs seizing power, as evidenced by the fact that much of Syria is in control of a genocidal, maniacal group like ISIS despite the fact that most Muslims are not genocidal maniacs. This possibility when coupled wih the fact of Britain's military capability and nuclear stockpiles is utterly terrifying. If some extremist Islamist group were to seize power that would almost certainly result in the mass gang rape and sexual enslavement of white women as well as the mass murder of white men, as demonstrated by the treatment of the Yazidis by ISIS.
Thus I say that our current levels of migration will eventually lead to the subjugation and ethnic displacement and long term extinction of the white population due to interbreeding and sheer numerical disadvantage, as a best case scenario. There is also the possibility of a physical campaign of genocide by mass murder which could happen via an Islamist minority seizing power once Islam is a majority religion. The increase in immigration demanded by mentally ill left wing sociopaths would hasten both of these possibilities.
The idea that we can live peacefully as a white minority in a majority African/Islamic country is laughable and not backed up by any evidence, whether it be historical or of the current world. The absolute best case scenario is to live on heavily segregated and armed reservations so we can avoid the indiscriminate interracial attacks, rapes and murders that we would be the target of, based on current rates of interracial crime extrapolated into the future.
[–]Captain_LuddSocialism - Come dungeons dark or gallows grim 2 points3 points4 points  (8 children)
the impact of 20,000 refugees?
it will add up to about a hundred per town m8
[–]Leetenghui 8 points9 points10 points  (2 children)
Except that assumes IF they are going to be spread around equally. Problem is they don't. Bolton and Rochdale have taken more than the entire south east.
This can be seen in some of the classes that used to be run (as there is now no funding) at Bolton college. Whole classes full of non UK born individuals seeking asylum.
[–]Captain_LuddSocialism - Come dungeons dark or gallows grim 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
thats believable, then again, they'l fit in better in rochdale and bolton. probably wouldn't be any issue with the local populace. and ive worked in rochdale for years.
[–]Leetenghui [score hidden]  (0 children)
It has actually had a negative effect.
A couple years back about 700 Hungarians suddenly appeared in Farnworth. Pretty much all of them had no English skills and they had blank CVs and or were around 50-60 years old. I had to call the council as they were not enrolling their children.
Or recently there has been a major Eritrean influx. There are medium rise flats where they are stuffed into. Which means there has been flight of locals as people don't want to live there anymore. Heatherfield in Astley bridge was once a medium rise flat development completely new. Once they started putting asylum seekers in there every other unit has been forsale.
[–]taboo__time [score hidden]  (2 children)
But that's not how people live right?
I mean they'll want to live together more than ever. That's what happens, dispersal never works. Immigrants naturally want to live together as do local white populations and so there is gradual segregation.
[–]Captain_LuddSocialism - Come dungeons dark or gallows grim [score hidden]  (1 child)
lets face it. asian populated areas aren't any worse than white ones. you can totally go into an asian part of town for a curry and its not like they'l behead you and put it on youtube is it. not to say let em all in because refugees are good for us because they're not. but the effect on society won't be terrible, just the effect on our economy and housing and the likes.
[–]taboo__time [score hidden]  (0 children)
The 20,000 number is nothing. It's just not a number people are are worried about. People might say even if it costs us we're happy to take the hit. It's the right thing to do.
The half a million we take every year is another thing.
It gets kind of odd to hear extreme right economic ideas about the value of free markets come from the far left combined with their indifference to extreme right wing values from migrants.
I'm now genuinely questioning myself is it racist to ask that question?
[–]200-7 [score hidden]  (0 children)
What about the 300,000 other migrants which enter the UK each year?
[–]isometimesweartweed -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
It's 30 per constituency.
[–]Azlan82 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
Id happily take 250,000 if we wernt taking 330,000 EU immigrants each year...cant have it both ways lefties.
[–]KyotoWolfOrange Book [score hidden]  (0 children)
Assuming being pro-immigration is an exclusively left-wing concept, which it's not.
[–]hpshout 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Are left wingers even happy with 20,000 over 5 years? Given 8000+ enter Europe a day, the 20,000 over 5 years thing is just useless.
[–]thebluemonkeyI'm "English" what ever that means [score hidden]  (0 children)
I'm more concerned about how honest and impartial the news agencies are
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
π Rendered by PID 6994 on app-117 at 2015-10-02 19:31:02.269285+00:00 running 5a831bf country code: DE.
0%
 
10%
 
20%
 
30%
 
40%
 
50%
 
60%
 
70%
 
80%
 
90%
 
100%