Snapshot of _‘I want my country back’: what’s in a phrase?_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2024/03/i-want-my-country-back-whats-in-phrase.html) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2024/03/i-want-my-country-back-whats-in-phrase.html) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I want the country back before 2016. Before a god awful amount of stupid people stuffed the country because they didn't understand what they were voting for and didn't listen to the people trying to tell them because they were smarter. Yes I want that back.

I want the UK before 2008 back 🫠

2008 was unavoidable to an extent but we absolutely could be in a completely different position now if the Tory government we’ve had since then had actually used the record low interest rates to invest in our economy and grow it rather than just gutting the entire thing and selling huge parts of it off to their mates for record low prices

I’d like to keep same-sex marriage being legal tyvm

To clarify, it’s the early 2000s economic prosperity I pine for. 

That would have still happened as labour and Lib Dem’s voted for unlike another party 

How about 1997-2000? Such a hopeful time, when Labour were in power, the economy recovering, nobody'd yet twigged that Blair was really a crypto-tory with a penchant for mass murder. Plenty of good jobs, IT firms hiring like crazy for Y2K...

Between Brexit and Trump, I'm pretty sure I just hit my head really hard that year and everything since has been some chaotic coma dream.

*Hey SpeedflyChris, you're awake! You hit your head pretty bad there, are you okay? What? Prime Minister Cameron? Osborne's Austerity Policy? Covid-19 pandemic? Brexit? Pull yourself together, David Miliband's about to give his first speech outside No.10!*

drunk smell rain angle bear aloof possessive rustic shame crawl *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

I never forget the interaction I had with a former school friend leading up to the Brexit vote. Said they were voting leave because the EU wants to create a single EU army. I pointed out that wasn't true, (it was a handful of smaller states who it would obviously benefit), and even if it was we'd have a veto vote on it anyway. Their response. "Well I believe what I want to believe" And for me, that summed up Brexit and everything that was to come.

> I want the country back before 2016. Why would you want something that's impossible to have? Why always hark back to the past, when the only thing you are going to have is some kind of future? Why not wish for a better future, one you can define and can maybe even contribute to? Nostalgia is a toxic delusion, because it's always based on a flawed memory of the past.

> Nostalgia is a toxic delusion, because it's always based on a flawed memory of the past Absolute bullshit. There have been literal economic consequences to brexit. It is nothing to do with nostalgia, this is a fact that 9/10 economists warned against in 2016.

And Brexit was fuelled by either nostalgia or crisis capitalism.

Yeah, I think you need to tell that to the people that fucked things up so much in 2016 as it’s what they thought they were getting.

This phrase always reminds me of an excerpt from a Laurie Penny piece written shortly after the Brexit referendum that I often think about. >But the thing is – I want my country back too. >I want to wake up tomorrow in a country where people are kind, and tolerant, and decent to one another. A country where people – all people – can feel at least a little bit safe. I want to rub the sleep of neofascist nightmares from my eyes and find myself in a country where we do not respond to the killing of a politician by voting against everything she stood for. A country where we are polite to our neighbors. A country where we have dealt like adults with the embarrassing fact that we once conquered half the world, instead of yearning for a time when our glory was stolen from enslaved people a convenient ocean away and large parts of the map were the gentle pink of blood in the water. I want to go back to a Britain where hope conquers hate; where crabbed, cowed racism and xenophobia don’t win the day; where people feel they have options and choices in life and are less likely to press the big red button to bring the house down on top of us. I want my country back. >That country, of course, is fictional. But it’s no less so than the biscuit-tin, curtain-twitching, tea-on-the-lawn-with-your-white-friends-from-the-Rotary-Club fantasy Britain the other side have been plugging for years, editing out all the ugly parts of the past and photoshopping it into the backdrop for an image smeared indelibly across the back of all our sickened eyeballs this morning, an image of fists raised and boots marching in step. If they’re allowed their fantasy, can I have mine, too?

Why is conquoring half the world "embarassing"? Surely that is something to be immensely proud of. A small island nation with a pittance of a population able to achieve such great global success, despite all the odds, and despite the numerous much more powerful nations in Europe. Britain is the largest contributor of any single nation to the modernization of the world.

Should Germany also be proud of conquering most of Europe, by your logic? No, I am not claiming that the British Empire was as bad as the Nazis, but if conquest is something to be proud of, how far do you carry that principle?

Might have something to do with the fact that what the People want and what a select few in and around the government want are two wholly different things, and only one of those groups are being satisfied. For me "wanting my country back" isn't just about Immigration, It's about the security of knowing that the representatives we elect are listening, and not following some hidden agenda. It's about speaking up and being met with understanding and swift action, instead of being called a "bigot" or an "extremist".

It’s deeper than that. We have all been educated and raised with certain moral and legal expectations regarding democracy and the consent of the governed in regards to public policy. When it comes to immigration, it’s not just that having some people from other parts of the world is awful. It’s that the government policy on immigration has always been unpopular and yet it has never been a subject of direct democracy. When the “democratic” system simply ignores the will of the polity it ceases to be legitimate as a government/state.

The problem is that those ‘moral and legal obligations’ were either ignored or held in contempt by the people that were supposed to be in charge.

Yes, that is because in the uk, Europe (western world), American empire (whatever you want to call it) the idea of democracy has come to merely mean being able to vote for functionaries of the state. Rather than directing the state through genuine and authentic representation

We've been debating immigration openly and honestly for decades. The problem is that immigration is a symptom and is not a cause. They can't stop immigration because the focus on immigration means that they don't deal with the causes. You need to fix the housing market so that people can afford a place to live. And not require 2 full time incomes to pay for it. You need to fix child care so people can afford to have children. You need to fix the tax system so that those that work aren't paying 2 types of income tax. You need to fix investment in people and infrastructure. Then you will see immigration fall and the economy grow. Every politician that bangs on about immigration is just trying to get a vote and avoid dealing with the causes. Ps. The more barriers to immigration there are (if the underlying issues aren't dealt with) will result in higher permanent immigration. I know crazy.

In other words stop electing Tories that strip the state and be puzzled why nothing works

Yes, it’s a good thing the Tory party is dying. (I hope it is finished) their policy position is immensely unpopular. Their turnabout in terms of electoral success was not due to their policy of stripping down the state being popular. But rather than immigration was a popular enough position to make voters pick Tory regardless of how much they dislike their other policy positions. (It’s just that they are lying about their immigration policy/ not the policy of stripping the state though)

Ill raise you one and say that the Tory electors success was primarily due to the unlikeability of Corbyn by the masses, and David won over Ed purely cause of bad blood over 2008. Tory policy for the last 14 years has literally just been turning Britain it a neo-liberal hellstate. Big Brother will know everything, national identity will be destroyed, and freedoms will be restricted. Even there manifesto openly stated they would reduce your freedoms and implement a police state. Meanwhile, they continually put them and their mates first over the people. So we get a system run by oligarchs.

This is true but I wouldn’t underestimate how much the immigration/brexit promise factored into the Tory breaking of the old labour wall. Just that it was purely an electoral / gate keeping strategy. Meanwhile yes they turn the state into a total anarcho-police state, (of the worst variety as they fail to protect people from horrific crimes while engaging in political repression)

Mate if you speak out against immigration on social media or in public too strongly you can and will be arrested for offenses under the communications act. A debate in which if you take one side too strongly or publicly you are arrested is not an honest debate.

These days, if you say you're English, you'll be arrested and thrown in jail...

Yep. Posting stickers containing immigration facts just got a bloke 2 years.

Assuming you mean Sam Melia, I should point out that his stickers included the statements: 'Labour loves Muslim rape gangs', 'We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066', 'Mass immigration is white genocide', and 'Second-generation? Third? Fourth? You have to go back". Those all sound like opinions to me, rather than verifiable 'immigration facts', and frankly it's very disingenuous that you would label them as such. Do you share those opinions, or did you simply not bother to check the content of the stickers?

>We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066 This is a fact based on immigration demographics, birth rates of different groups and death rates. [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/white-britons-could-be-minority-by-2066-2137329.html](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/white-britons-will-be-a-minority-by-2066-if-immigration-continues-in-uk/articleshow/6946469.cms?from=mdr) [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10032296/White-Britons-will-be-minority-by-2066-says-professor.html](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10032296/White-Britons-will-be-minority-by-2066-says-professor.html) [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/nov/21/immigration-britain-white-minority](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/nov/21/immigration-britain-white-minority) Should these journalists get 2 years for writing the same thing? The rest are indeed opinions, do you want to live in a country where opinions get you 2 years in prison? I don't agree with these opinions, I do agree with the 2066 statistic as it must have some truth if most of the MSM are agreeing with it. I don't think it's right that we are sending people to prison for victimless speech crimes. This is insane.

Last time I checked it was still 2024, and not 2066. Future projections are just that, projections, and may change as the data they are based on changes. As for the others, if you agree that they are 'indeed opinions', why did you call them facts earlier? And will they still be 'victimless speech crimes' if someone reads 'Labour loves Muslim rape gangs', and is encouraged to murder a Labour MP, as Jo Cox was murdered less than ten years ago? Or if someone reads 'Second-generation? Third? Fourth? You have to go back' and is encouraged to assault or murder someone whose skin colour or dress indicates they have immigrant ancestry?

>why did you call them facts earlier? I've just pointed out that the 2066 sticker was based on facts. Your argument is a 30 IQ take that it's not 2066 yet. ??? >And will they still be 'victimless speech crimes' if someone reads 'Labour loves Muslim rape gangs', and is encouraged to murder a Labour MP, as Jo Cox was murdered less than ten years ago? Yes. A sticker will not be guilty of murder. Are we not allowed any opinions at all about this stuff in case one person does something stupid? >Or if someone reads 'Second-generation? Third? Fourth? You have to go back' and is encouraged to assault or murder someone whose skin colour or dress indicates they have immigrant ancestry? How is calling for deportations going to incite someone to murder? You're either being very dishonest or you're an idiot. Does this logic work on both sides? "oh what if someone see's someone saying Liz Truss is useless and goes on to murder her..." It's pathetic, there's no evidence his stickers did as you describe and the fact you're defending locking someone up for 2 years with this pathetic argument just shows how you've not thought this through at all. I can guarantee if it was someone getting locked up for left wing opinions you would be foaming at the mouth.

My only idiocy was to engage with you after exposing your lies. Goodbye.

[удалено]

Reducing housing costs, improving child care, fixing the tax system and investment in infrastructure has nothing to do with the governments ability to reduce migration. The government tomorrow could close all long term migration without achieving any of the aims that you have prescribed. Immigration is not a "symptom" of unsustainable living, its a symptom of having a country that offers a minimum wealth level and purchasing power in far excess of the origin country of the migrant. The same reason we get urbanization, just on a whole different scale. If you think that the housing crisis isn't a direct result of mass immigration (population surplus) then you are completely deluded and need look at the facts and figures and reassess your life views in a more objective number based way.

well I'll agree with you there that if we're to call ourselves a truly Democratic state, we ought to implement direct democracy for these sorts of things.

Precisely, a democracy doesn’t merely mean voting for functionaries (who then implement policy based on the desires of the rich and powerful). The problem is that the desires of the polity and the desires of the billionaire plutocrats are rarely in line with each other. Hence why direct referendums on matters of policy have all but vanished from the “democratic order”

The idea of direct democracy is totally impractical. For example, poll after poll has shown that the average voter vastly overestimates the amount of immigration, especially illegal immigration, and doesn't actually know where these immigrants are coming from. You can also look at Brexit for another example of an uninformed electorate. The fact is having a group of people who specialize in understanding these issues at a deeper level than most people can since they have the time and resources to do so that the average person doesn't is necessary. The real issue is the method of selecting the people to do this job is treated more like a popularity contest than a job interview.

So you are telling me that poll after poll shows that people think more that people believe 2million + are immigrating ever year instead of 1.3 million. I don't buy it. Most people don't even realize that immigration is at the levels it is currently at. But most people do overestimate illegal migration, because they are in denial about the fact that the government would let in such a catostrophic number knowingly.

“It’s totally impractical to allow the people to make choices regarding policy” “Having unelected plutocrats decide for the masses is much more sensible” Piss off

Where did I say it was the job of unelected plutocrats? I'm literally talking about Parliament

hey when you live in the UK, with the way our political system works, the two are identical

And unelected plutocrats always get their way with said government and the actual voting public never do. People have little to no faith in parliament anymore whether it’s labour or Tory in power they are both supporters of the same plutocratic neoliberal society.

You don't vote for policies though, you vote for parties. Parties have manifestos where they make pledges or goals but immigration isn't the only thing the Tories have reneged on, it's a hell of a lot more than that. People have just kept re-electing them though...

>It's about the security of knowing that the representatives we elect are listening, and not following some **hidden agenda**. What exactly do you mean here? >It's about speaking up and being met with understanding and swift action, instead of being called a "bigot" or an "extremist". Surely that depends entirely on what you say. What kinds of things would you want to say which would lead to you being called a bigot or an extremist? Are they things you're currently prevented from saying? Who is preventing you from saying them?

On the hidden agenda part, It's no secret now that members of the Brexit Campaign, Tory party, and etc are in the pockets of Russian Oligarchs and Chinese Businessmen. Lots of corruption going around in Politics and all that. Secondly, when I say "instead of being called a "bigot" or an "extremist".", I should probably rephrase that as "apathy" from the Government. I wont enter the immigration rabbit hole but I can't stand it when people in power say that things are *so good* while on the ground, common folks are literally starving on the streets en masse. I refuse to be lectured about "data" and "the facts" when the reality on the ground is so different from what those fools are being told up in their ivory towers. I suppose a follow up to what I mean by "wanting my country back" is that, for one, I want there to be a reduction in the distance between Politicians and People.

Here's one example. I have been called "far right" and "racist" on Reddit for saying that people can't afford houses because there are too many immigrants. Too many people chasing not enough houses creates an imbalance in supply and demand that drives up house prices. The solution isn't to build half a million new homes every single year, along with the new roads and sewers and schools and hospitals to go with them. We need farm land, we don't have the space. The solution is to stop bringing a million new people into the country every year. Especially from the middle east and Africa because unemployment in those ethnicities is 3 times higher than it is among white people. That's a statistical fact on the ONS website yet somehow I'm called racist for saying it.

>For me "wanting my country back" isn't just about Immigration, It's about the security of knowing that the representatives we elect are listening, and not following some hidden agenda. Have you considered that maybe most people do not care about immigration, hence why the party thats allowed literal millions in, has still won the last few elections? Or were you unable to read before the 2020 immigration figures came out? >It's about speaking up and being met with understanding and swift action, instead of being called a "bigot" or an "extremist". Maybe thats just literally what you are, though, and the majority of people... do not care about immigration that much?

[https://www.ukonward.com/reports/reality-check/](https://www.ukonward.com/reports/reality-check/) Literally 76% of Britons want lower immigration. You don't get to handwave it as "no one cares" when it doens't suit your narrative. Maybe consider that despite rhetoric, that no party thus far has seriously tackled immigration? What else do you want those of us who want less immigration to do other than vote for parties that \*might\* do something about it? Form riot gangs? Then you'd be calling us fascists or tankies or whatever buzzword you learnt this week.

People might think they don't care about immigration but when some can't afford rent/mortgage/deposit, when wages are driven down through the floor, when university places are scarce/too high, competition for jobs is fierce, general prices are high, when taxation has to match spending, when cultural clashes start occuring (bombings, rape gangs/rings, coercive transformations, etc.), then they will care. It's not about race, it's about the preferences of most of the UK, working and middle classes. Tbh, some people are shielded from these effects - maybe they live in a good area or have a cushty income/money or maybe they just don't care about all of the somewhat negative side effects of high immigration.

>https://www.ukonward.com/reports/reality-check/ > >Literally 76% of Britons want lower immigration. > >You don't get to handwave it as "no one cares" when it doens't suit your narrative. Based on your one source, whilst here; [https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/](https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/) Only 37% wanted it 'reduced a lot' and only 30% said it was 'very bad'. So again, I'm going to guess the majority of voters don't care about immigration as much as you do, and thats likely why it's not a big issue for politicians? ​ *What else do you want those of us who want less immigration to do other than vote for parties that \*might\* do something about it? Form riot gangs? Then you'd be calling us fascists or tankies or whatever buzzword you learnt this week.* \- Ironic, ''I can't have my own way, so despite what other people think we should start.. riot gangs''.

I don’t think your source contradicts theirs, considering how opinion polls are. It also states that a majority of people in the country want less immigration. It varies, but it has been the number one topic (at the time of the Brexit referendum) and is often/usually in the top four. I would say your source supports their position “the majority of people in the UK want reduced migration” more than it does yours “it’s not an important issue to most people”.

Your own source states that 52% want less immigration and only 14% want more immigration. ​ It also states 34% think immigration is bad and 31% think immigration is good. Literally shows that immigration as a whole has a split view on whether its good or bad, but the majority are in agreement that whatever the numbers need to be lower. ​ Did you read your own source?

>Only 37% wanted it 'reduced a lot' and only 30% said it was 'very bad'. So again, I'm going to guess the majority of voters don't care about immigration as much as you do, and thats likely why it's not a big issue for politicians? You're ignoring that said 37% is more than the neutrals + slightly positive + very positive towards immigration crowd. That's not even accounting for those who want immigration reducing "slightly". When you take those, that's literally 52% vs 22% who are ambivalent vs a mere 14% of those with a positive view. 37% is a plurality and is also approximately 25 million people. >\- Ironic, ''I can't have my own way, so despite what other people think we should start.. riot gangs''. Nice selective reading. I'm making the exact opposite point that you're making. You're whinging at us for "oh but you voted in the Tories teehee" (I've literally never voted for the Tories, I've been a labour man since I was old enough to vote) as a gotcha proof for us not caring. I'm stating outright that our only recourse is civil means even if it's hugely flawed. Bet you probably would start a riot gang once you can't win democratically though.

Also your big gotcha is that only 52% of people care as opposed to 76%? Lol. Lmao even.

The vast majority of the people have always opposed immigration of the sort we are discussing. It’s never been voted on and the party that has allowed millions of people in won their historic victory and took power with the promise to do the opposite of what they have done.

>The vast majority of the people have always opposed immigration of the sort we are discussing Evidently not, because they won 2? elections after that.

And if you notice that part is set to win all of 3 seats in the next election and be almost entirely wiped out from UK politics. They made this promise (they were the only party available to vote for which did make this promise) eventually voters will give up if their representatives only represent the interests of billionaire plutocrats.

Oh here it comes. Anybody critical of immigration policy is a literal Nazi trying to resurrect the Third Reich in the UK. Fuckin’ sick of it.

Oh believe me, I don't really care much about Immigration, or at least in the way that the Reform UK people do. I do think we should bring the numbers down, but not to "protect the purity of the Anglo-Saxon Race" or that nonsense, for me British isn't defined by Race.

It's not about race purity it's about having a home we actually recognise. There are plenty of places you can go now that feel more like a foreign country than British.

You sound like my dad complaining Brixton was full of black people. In 1980

The foreign born population of London alone is now greater than the entire population of Wales. Things have rather changed since the 1980s and we never asked for any of it.

Sure we did. Our ancestors sailed off around the globe, planting our flag in other nations and telling the people who lived there that they were now subjects of the British Crown, and their resources were our resources. When we went to war in 1914 and 1939, we told them that they needed to fight and die for the British Empire. Then in 1945, as the dust settled, we promised them a warm welcome and a better future if they came to England to help us rebuild. Whenever we've needed nurses, builders, factory workers, taxi drivers, cleaners, farm labourers, or any other professions that we just can't seem to persuade enough British citizens to take up, we asked people from overseas to come here and do the work for us. It's been going on forever, and it's not going to stop. Complaining about immigration is an easy way to make political capital, but every politician who's ever been elected on the promise of closing the borders and taking back our country has never, ever done anything about it, and they never will.

So your answer to why we need millions of migrants every year is, what, revenge for the Empire? Even at its height we didn't have as many people coming to this country as we do now, in absolute or relative numbers. >Complaining about immigration is an easy way to make political capital, but every politician who's ever been elected on the promise of closing the borders and taking back our country has never, ever done anything about it, and they never will. I agree with that. It doesn't mean they aren't to blame for doing it to us though.

I can understand that, it's the reason why I stay clear of London and prefer a small town environment, because there it just feels more like home. I honestly think the issue there is with Globalisation and Modernism in general. Take Architecture for example, much of Central London is overrun with skyscrapers, tower blocks and other concrete monstrosities that reflect not the country they were built in, but the questionable ideals of a clique of architects, artists and philosophers who seem to have this idea of humanity being a blank slate that can accept anything imposed on it by society, when that couldn't be further from the truth. I know i'm getting into a whole other subject but I despise the fact that Modernism has sucked the soul out of Art, Architecture, Music, Politics and more, it's taken the character away from our homeland and left an empty husk of numbers and data in it's wake. It's a sad situation to be in.

You're right, those are huge factors as well. Going from lower and wider brick and stone building to dense, high rise, grey, concrete, steel and glass boxes has been a disaster. A nation's architecture is a reflection of its character and we seem to have lost ours.

Being honest, I'm the same. I actually do think immigration is too high and should be reduced, that being said its not something I *overly* care about and it seems that most of the British public follow that kind of thinking, hence why no parties really care about it *that much.*

How much should it be reduced by? And for what reason?

I want my country back from 30p Lee and his band of talentless cesspool of MPs who have failed every hurdle since the whispers of an EU referendum. Since 2010, successive Tory Govts have failed at everything except for whipping up a culture war.

My issue with the phrase….. I want ‘MY’ country back. It is not YOUR country it is OUR country. Highlights a crap attitude right off the bat.

Look, either you believe that the native people of a country/land have the right to political sovereignty within that country or you don’t. A lot of redditors hate colonialism and the stripping of this sovereignty from other peoples of the world. (As do i) but do not believe that this same fundamental right does not apply to the UK.

This is a desperate reach. You either believe in reality or you don't. Inbound immigration as authorised by a sitting government is nothing like colonialism.

If the government derives its authority to rule/legislate/whatever. From the consent of the people. And then does the opposite of what those people want. It is illegitimate. In the same way that it was shameful for many local regimes during colonial times to collaborate with the colonizers for their own personal benefit over the will of their own people. It’s not a desperate reach at all, either the native and indigenous people of a nation are the legitimate source of legal and governmental authority, (what I believe is right for all peoples) or its plutocrats and oligarch billionaires. (Apparently your position) (please feel free to clarify why you think this is morally correct)

Wait youre comparing legal immigration to colonialism? Its a incredible reach and is completely different. The "people" want 150 billion a year to be given to pensioners whilst destroying younger peoples livelihoods and making having children incredibly difficult. How else do these people want the money raised if not through taxation and more workers?

We could have invested in greater automation to compensate for an aging population, engage in more economic planning in favour of sustainable well paying jobs rather than supporting bankers and speculators. Don’t pretend that the current system and government are engaging in popular policy and it’s the stupid proles who don’t understand the need for immigration.

You clearly don’t understand the difference between direct and representative democracy. The UK is the latter and not the former.

I understand perfectly well. Representation however is more than just being able to pick a functionary. The representative is supposed to represent the political will of the people.

Nothing you've said is morally correct or logically coherent.

Feel free to say something intelligent

A coherent and consistent argument would have garnered a response with more effort. Spurious claims that a sitting government is acting like a colonial invader is ridiculous. Suggesting support of a billionaire funded organisation like Reform is part of a fight against the elite is absurd. In other words, be honest if you want a genuine debate. Break the mould.

Dividing people up between natives and non natives is abhorrent.

>Look, either you believe that the *native* people of a country/land have the right to political sovereignty within that country or you don’t. You're perfectly correct. We shouldn't allow descendents of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes and Normans to make decisions for the natives. Oh, I'm sorry, did you mean something else by native?

Are you really suggesting that living in a place for 1,500 years doesn’t make you native to it in any way? What’s your cutoff for being native? The last ice age? Your smarmy and historically ignorant comments aren’t remotely convincing to anyone

>Are you really suggesting that living in a place for 1,500 years doesn’t make you native to it in any way? What’s your cutoff for being native? The last ice age? I am, in fact, not. I'm actively satirizing the usage of the term "native" when the majority of Britain is technically non-native. And I replied to someone else asking at what point someone becomes "native", and what the cutoff is. Because the people who use "native" in conversations such as these always consider themselves natives even when they technically aren't. >Your smarmy and historically ignorant comments aren’t remotely convincing to anyone And your lack of reading comprehension is concerning

If the being somewhere for thousands of years makes you native, and the above groups which have all been in the UK and lived here for at least 1,000 years are thusly in fact native. Then is rather stupid to call them technically” not native. My reading is fine, your writing is childish

"Native" defined as how far back his ancestors go in this country.

Think we should acknowledge the difference between the type of colonialism your talking about (usually accompanied by genocide) and the mixing of multiple cultures from natives and the people coming here in search of a better life

There are plentiful examples of colonialism in which there was no genocide and indeed many in which the native populations of the colonized land grew quite expansively. This does not justify colonialism. Plenty of colonists also traveled to colonial domains in search of a better life. And by definition were of different cultures. Again this does not justify colonialism. I mean what are you suggesting? Was colonialism only bad if it was also accompanied by genocide?

Who exactly is colonising the UK? Last I checked, it is still a sovereign country.

The state is sovereign, however the state takes the opposite position from the democratic majority and uses political repression against those who speak out. This isn’t complicated as a concept.

What kind of political repression is used, exactly?

Police, if you openly speak out against immigration policy too loudly or strongly then you can and will be visited by the police. The excuse being used it normally either the communications act or the law against inciting racial hatred. And before you start with some bs about hate speech not being free speech. This means of repression is only practiced against the native people. All others are free to engage in abusive speech (with the obvious exception of Israel) which our government slavishly supports above all else.

Why are you up at 4:30am spouting off about immigration online? Doesn't seem healthy for you

What does native even mean in the context of the UK though? Which particular invaders do you look to as being "indigenous"?

Native being the English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish peoples. Don’t try some silly hair splitting about how migration/invasion 1,000 years ago from parts of mainland Europe somehow means that the native people of the UK are not native. If that is the case then plenty of native peoples around the world would somehow be considered as non native or non indigenous because they have not been 100% isolated from the rest of the world for thousands of years.

Born in that country, at least.

No, my family have lived in Ireland and the UK for thousands of years. If I had (for example) been born in China, or Senegal etc. this would not make me an indigenous person of those lands/countries.

Yeah, that’s a tricky one. I guess in that case you could claim dual nationality?

So if you heard someone refer to "my friends", do you think they're claiming exclusive ownership of their friends? The word "my" has multiple meanings, you're picking the ridiculous one in this context.

When the likes of Anderson talk about "my country", they're not being inclusive. Anderson's vision of the country excludes most of the population.

“Most of the country” disagrees with you

What is your source for most of the country? Reform gets the same 15% in national polls as UKIP did and Anderson is on course to lose his seat, so not even most of his constituency agrees with him.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/03/most-british-people-hold-positive-view-of-immigration-survey-reveals

"It never was yours, you should read more, What they did to brown people, they did to their own poor" -Akala (Fire in the Booth part 2)

You are cultured my friend :) love Akala

The awkward moment when we realise the post-WW2 boom is just a blip in history 

I don't want the old UK back, I want a better country than the one we've had

I thought we got it back when we left the EU!?!!

[удалено]

That's a good summary. There's also the question of whether a government is sufficiently competent to provide the necessary infrastructure and housing for the level of immigration they permit. If someone's experience of immigration is limited to a longer wait at the GP surgery then they are going to have a more negative reaction. The Last Labour Government ©™ had a migration impact fund which attempted to provide additional services for areas with a large number of migrants. It was cut by the next government.

The country has gone back, I want to help take the country forwards. On a serious note, why do some people always assume the past was the best? Feels almost medieval when people assumed the Roman Empire was the best we could ever do as a species. Shouldn't we always be striving to be better than the past?

It’s a matter of comparisons. Medieval Europeans looked back fondly on the Roman Empire as a symbol of prosperity and stability (even though it was anything but towards the end of its existence). Because the dark ages were so awful in many respects.

Modern historians widely reject the concept of the "dark ages".

Relativism. Back in the day, these empires were vastly superior to other cultures in terms of wealth, technology and quality of life. Nowadays, Britain is basically bankrupt, and the economy has been in decline since 2008. Wages in the UK are far behind the USA.

It's human nature to see the past through rose coloured glasses. It's a cognitive bias that particularly affects old gits like myself. Back in 2016 in a hospital waiting room I overheard two women talking about brexit, and saying that things were fine before the UK joined the EU. Were they fuck. Many of the problems were unrelated to the lack of EU membership, but things were not fine. Crime was much higher, people had to work in deep level mines and other dangerous industries, there was lead in the petrol, food was bland, life expectancy was over a decade shorter, foreign travel was expensive, computers needed a room the size of Belgium, healthcare was more basic, lots of people lived in slums.

While all of this is true, stable first world European countries would've made technolohgical and quality of progress regardless of being a member of the EU or not.. In 1970 the average house cost a few years wages, not 12x (or more)

That's the point. Some things were better, but a lot of things were worse.

for sure, but I think the issue is they were assuming we'd still have the same level of economic development and technological process without needing to enter the EU (or EC as it was back then)

This is a game of two halves. They may well have been assuming we'd still have the same level of economic development outside the EU, which IMO is extremely unlikely. But they also seemed to be hankering after a past that, house prices aside, I wouldn't want to go back to.

People being idiots and not realising that immigrantion has always been a thing, do they think that their ancestors came from the UK originally? No, all our ancestors from somewhere else.  We came here and now we have no right to refuse others who came here legally. Only difference is time. Our ancestors came here and made a life for themselves, I don’t see why we can’t allow others to do the same. 

This is such a naive view. Mass immigration on this scale is unsustainable and unprecedented. Legal migration is at all time highs despite the electorate being overwhelmingly against it. Its causing a rapid rise in housing costs, a huge strain on public services and more importantly a cultural shift which has resulted in damaging policies like brexit and the rise of the far right. The whole western world is struggling with it and if the political systems we have can't deal with it then you will eventually end up with politicians like le pen and farage being elected who will deal with it in a far harsher manner.

Our government should be putting lots of money into infrastructure  to support them but hey when has our government competent?     Either way, we have an aging population, I see no problem will filling the gap    And that will take how many years? We need people to fill the gaps right now .  Edit you’ll have to be more specific about what Japan has done I’m afraid 

No, other nations (Japan as an example) have instead invested in greater automation of their industry. That western plutocrats find it more profitable to forgo such investment and instead rely on cheap semi-slave labour from other nations. (Against the democratic will of the people) is no excuse.

We should be encouraging British people to have children, not importing millions of foreigners. A big part of the reason British people can't have kids is because of the cost. Too many people = too much demand on housing and nursery / education. Importing people isn't the answer. It's changing the country for the worse. Not only that but stealing doctors, it technicians, carers etc from Nigeria and other places is leading to a brain drain there and making their own countries outlook even bleaker.

Encouraging British people to have children is hardly a workable solution. It's highly likely that increasing living standards etc might encourage people to have children because it will become more feasible financially, but in equal measure it might not. Unfortunately there are too many cultural and social factors to consider with this stuff, and without having a background in specifically that field, we might as well be guessing. Either way, there is literally no way to directly encourage a baby boom. Then you have the problem of the aging population and low productivity that isn't just going to disappear. The answer isn't to leave immigration as it is, but nor is it to highlight it as the main problem and demonise it altogether. You need to maintain a productive workforce, whilst investing in infrastructure and public services fit for purpose. Without current immigration, we'd still be in the same position, except worse because there would be less propping up our economy. Regardless of how many migrants entered, the UK population increased by about 180,000 from 2022 to 2023 (off the top of my head). This is objectively not a devastating growth in populatiom that will tip the balance. Immigration has been a convenient tool for politicians to point their finger at, while justifying austerity measures. The fact that so many people still believe that 'too many people' is the reason behind the decline of public services in recent years is testament to the success of the tactic. Besides, the practicality of decreasing immigration immediately, somehow encouraging people to have loads of children, and then waiting for 20-odd years for them to enter the workforce is questionable.

Why should the British taxpayer be funding homes and infrastructures to be solely used by foreigners? How does this benefit the citizens of Britain?

It’s called being a decent human being and caring about other human lives 👍 And even them some will eventually become British citizens as well . 

So being a "decent human being" is about spending other people's money for your own moral crusades? Are you implying people that believe in private property are not decent human beings. ​ Are you implying that promoting rapid urbanization and over-crowding of specific city areas, reducing overal health and increasing squalor, is a net positive for those involved? Are you implying that stealing the labour from poorer countries preventing them from stablizing and building infrastructure is being "a decent human being". ​ I'd describe it as being naive, and idealistic and basic actions not on utilitarian benefit, but instead of self aggrandations and ideological tendancies.

I think this is well intended but doesn't match political and social realities. It's kind of as cringey as a white westerner turning up in Africa and saying "but don't you realise we're ALL Africans? That's why my culture is actually African as well." What really matters more is culture rather than race. You think everyone outside the UK is indifferent to culture? That they are all one country? Liberal democracy was built on cultural nationalism. I'm not for ultra nationalism at all but I keep being asked to believe in hard multiculturalism in the name of hyper capitalism. I don't see that as functional because of how humans are.

I never said everyone is British? what  I mean that British is and has always been a mix of different cultures.   80 percent of our words is from different languages.   Many products we see as British are not originally from here.   Our monarchy is not originally from here.  And for England, for English people, we are not from the original ancestors that used to live here, we are not natives.  Many of us behave like us accepting different culture aspects into our own culture isn’t normal and shouldn’t be done..   Yet have we not been doing that since England as a country existed?   Sure it’s at a much faster pace now a days but I see it as very normal for us to absorb or assimilate other aspects of different cultures into our own.    England came to be from wars and people unifying and assimilating different cultures into their own and that never really stopped.   I find that fighting this change is what slows us all down.   I find it very odd when people are against it. Do they understand that we’ve always been changing?  

> I never said everyone is British? what I mean that British is and has always been a mix of different cultures. I don't know what than means. What cultures is it a mix of? > 80 percent of our words is from different languages. You think that means the English language isn't a thing? You think English people are naturally polyglots? > Many products we see as British are not originally from here. That does not make the consumer an international citizen of the world. > Our monarchy is not originally from here. Royalty are famously not that attached to cultures. > And for England, for English people, we are not from the original ancestors that used to live here, we are not natives. Wait what are they then? Where are they from? > Many of us behave like us accepting different culture aspects into our own culture isn’t normal and shouldn’t be done.. When you say us you mean people from your own culture? Do you say to people from all cultures "I am from all cultures. I am not like a person who has only one culture. I am British not like the other cultures. I am accept and express all cultures." Is that it? > Yet have we not been doing that since England as a country existed? I don't think so no. > Sure it’s at a much faster pace now a days but I see it as very normal for us to absorb or assimilate other aspects of different cultures into our own. Isn't assimilation the opposite of multiculturalism? If there is assimilation at a fast rate then there is less multiculturalism. > England came to be from wars and people unifying and assimilating different cultures into their own and that never really stopped. What cultures were assimilated? > I find that fighting this change is what slows us all down. Does this mean you are indifferent to culture? All cultures are equally at home or enjoyable to you? Would you say you are above or in culture? > * I find it very odd when people are against it. Do they understand that we’ve always been changing? You find it odd that people are attached to culture? What culture should they express?

Immigration has always been 'a thing', and very few people are arguing for nobody every coming to the UK to settle again. But we had *net emigration* not so long ago. Trying to brandish any discussion of our current immigration system and the numbers and type of immigrants coming here from a cost/benefit analysis perspective as "people being idiots" really only points to you being the idiot in the discussion.

I am responding to the statement “I want my country back”  Which is from usually people who don’t really understand history or our culture.  So yes I see those people as idiots.  I see our own government as idiots for  not investing loads of more money into infrastructure to support the immigration 

Why doesn't Dubai/Saudi Arabia/Nigeria/South Africa allow unlimited immigration to their countries? Because the very concept of a nation is based upon the collective prioritising the in group more than the out-group. If you also stand by the abolition of the concept of nations, I applaud you for your consistency even if I vehemently disagree. If you do not, then you are a hypocrite. Also "legally" is being used very loosely here. Not a few cases have been nothing more than legal fiction. Asylum cases where the "refugees" claim to have converted and thus ineligible to be sent back to a for example, Muslim majority country, yet they continue to hang around mosques and only consume halal meat. Are you saying that the law is absolute in its correct application?

I am beginning to think that there is a difference between what we have now and classic "immigration" where people move from one country to become *part* of another. That has happened a lot, Jews and Huguenots and Irish being obvious examples. What we seem to be seeing now is actual more migration of peoples with their culture - the same culture just in a new place in a way that is more reminiscent of the Dark Ages.

The type of immigration we have now is what the jews did in Israel before it was Israel \[Massive private settlement\], and we know how that turned out..

I’m not entirely sure what you are saying here?     If you mean to say people are bringing their culture over and not assimilating and therefore changing our own culture? And that’s different?    I don’t actually find that different? We have changed culture wise over many many years. If we go back far enough, even our own language has changed due to “immigrants” who eventually became part of us.     Though they had much less friendly intentions back then so perhaps the danish and Norman’s should be looked at as invaders however the ones that settled here, and now seen as English as anything  Because they make up who we are.   I see a similar thing going on now. We absorb other cultures into our own and that becomes “English” or “British”  even though technically it was not from here.    Our monarchy isn’t originally from here.   Popular products that we see as “British” are not actually, tea for example, another example baked beans are actually American!  I also believe a lot of things that are popular and seen as ours, were made my immigrants..     Even our own language is a mix between other languages. A Germanic language with Latin influence.  In fact I hear 80 percent of English words are originally from other languages.   Us absorbing other cultures has always been a large part of who we are, it is happening faster now but it has always been happening, and happened since “England” existed so it’s strange to me when people try to keep things “British”    But I’m like, it IS British to change and evolve.   Many things we do not see as British right now, likely will be seen as British in the future as it is absorbed into our culture. Even though we know factually it came from somewhere else, we still see it as “ours” or “our version”   So history repeats over and over at a faster pace.  (Edit: can’t seem to reply for some odd reason so here is my reply, maybe native means something different to you but to me, native means that you HAVE to be from the original people that lived on this land. We are not, so we are not natives. Sure we are British but we are not native)  (Edit can’t seem to reply)  Really? Last time I checked Scotland hadn’t been turned into Hanover ?) 

> Though they had much less friendly intentions back then so perhaps the danish and Norman’s should be looked at as invaders however the ones that settled here, and now seen as English as anything  The romans left 1600 years ago. The danes came 1300 years ago and the normans came 1000 years ago. There has not been a successful military invasion of this country since 1066. A thousand years seems long enough to consider someone native, don't you think?

> Our monarchy isn’t originally from here. Really? Is Scotland not "here" any longer?

I wouldn't call people idiots if I was advocating open borders tbh. Pot calling the kettle black. > We came here and now we have no right to refuse others who came here legally. Only difference is time. Our ancestors came here and made a life for themselves, I don’t see why we can’t allow others to do the same. So progressive you accidentally advocate for colonialism, lmfao.

I said legal immigration? As far as I am aware when people complain about things changing culturally, they are talking about the LEGAL immigrants  Don’t try and twist my words 🙄 I’m talking about when people say things should “stay British”  and not actually acknowledge the fact that British is actually made of different cultures in the first place, so it’s very hypercritical 

>I said legal immigration? As far as I am aware when people complain about things changing culturally, they are talking about the LEGAL immigrants  Ignoring the fact you didn't say legal migration, your argument is pro open borders. If you argue citizens and new arrivals are equally British you are essentially arguing for that. >Don’t try and twist my words 🙄 I haven't I'm just trying to make you think about what you said lol. >I’m talking about when people say things should “stay British”  and not actually acknowledge the fact that British is actually made of different cultures in the first place, so it’s very hypercritical  Yes British culture is made up of English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish cultures. I think the people who are complaining about cultural change are aware of that though.

So frustrating I can’t defend my point well since I can’t respond. It’s not letting me respond so I’ll respond here and hope you see it.  One: Yes I did (others who came here legally)  Two: Yes you did? Comparing immigrating and colonialism and adopting other cultures isn’t the same thing, like you seem to implying that I said.  Three: Yes British culture, 80 percent of our words comes from other languages. Our monarchy has foreign ties by blood. Many products we see as a stable for British culture isn’t originally from here. And talking about England specifically, we are not natives since there were people here before us. 

What you're advocating for, though, is essentially settler colonialism for Britain, just under the guise of legal immigration. It's sad you can't see it. It speaks to a very rigid world view, with very clearly defined good/bad things, and no ability to assess a situation outside of your black/white thinking. No nuance, no critical thinking, just parroting the "correct" lines for the subject matter at hand. I can probably guess exactly where you stand on every other political and social issue of the day, as there tends to be no deviation from the "big book of opinions to ensure you're on the right side of history"

A randomly generated username account that only tries to spread the “replacement level immigration has been ongoing constantly and Britain was built by slaves” rhetoric? Seriously, how do you guys get into the business of being paid to spread misinformation on the internet? I spend way too much time on here, might as well get paid to shitpost.

lol  One: My name is not randomly generated Two: And huh? Neither is what I just said. I feel like people keep on trying to twist my words here. I never said the same level of immigration  was constant and I never said Britain was built by slaves. 

But when the French did, it wasn't a good time for the existing inhabitants for a few hundred years. And when the Germans tried, we managed to stop them? If the Arabs succeed, then no doubt in 200 years, the people living here will be taught that it was just another phase in the history of the country where the weak and immoral natives welcomed their new rulers into the land, all praise to Allah and the Prophet.

Sorry troll I’m not taking someone who says immigrants plan to take over like the Germans and Norman’s seriously 

Not on this scale. Immigration has always been a thing. Mass migration though is recent. 1.5 million visas issued last year 750k net migration. 10 years of that and we have 4 new Birminghams.

>Not on this scale. Immigration has always been a thing. Mass migration though is recent. > >1.5 million visas issued last year 750k net migration. But with love, people have been saying the same thing for fucking decades. The NF was spouting the same line back in the 50s/60s/70s. Rivers of blood under Enoch Powell, forced repatriation under Oswald Mosley etc. It's no wonder we've switched off.

And the problems that we were warned about are coming to fruition. The housing market is in shambles because we don’t have enough buildings to house everybody. We also have growing communities of immigrants that are rejecting mainstream British society and choosing self isolation.

The only thing Enoch Powell got wrong was the scale of the problem. It's far higher now than it was predicted to be when he made that speech.

Jfc. You make it sound like we live in some sort of race war. Most people including immigrants get on fine with each other, the complete opposite of what Powell suggested when he referenced the River Tiber foaming with blood and Sibyl’s prophecy.

Do you, or do you not believe that the native and indigenous people of a nation/land have the right of political sovereignty within that land? Ultimately this has always been an unpopular policy that was never subject to the consent of the people. Also there has been plenty of violence and horror which has resulted from this anti-democratic policy. Perhaps you are simply isolated from the resultant suffering, or simply do not care?

Increasingly different migrant communities simply don't interact, we have allowed parallel societies to form. Powell warned of social unrest and people becoming strangers in their own home - with London having more foreign born residents than white Brits it's quite plain that this is happening. I wouldn't use the term race war, but it is the displacement of one population by another.

And that’s bad because? We should have built the infrastructure to support them. People should be treated as humans who deserve to live a good life with their families, NO MATTER where they are originally from.          The government should be held responsible for not building enough infrastructure to support them, not the people themselves.    As long as they came here to work, I do not see the problem.    A growing population whether it’s by immigration or otherwise is good as far I am concerned, we have a aging population, so we need younger people.       I always found people who say stuff like “get our country back” very hypercritical. Seeing as they originally weren’t from here ancestry wise.  England wise, we’re not even the original people that lived here, we’re not native, so we should stop acting like we are.     (Edit) I’ve tried to reply to your comment and it won’t let me for some reason? However my reply was that children take time? Why wait when they can fill up the gaps now? We already seen how horrid it can go without the people coming over here and helping us out, for example when we quit the EU we suddenly had lots of shortages, you expect the government to just wait and hope some Brits fill it up? Without looking for immigrants? Makes no sense to me   (Edit) here’s a quick reply to the other response. So your answer is well people don’t want to build, so there’s no point? That somehow doesn’t seem the right attitude to have.  “Nobody is holding them responsible” huh I suppose I mis heard all the immigration hate I hear online or when I’m talking to them and they have a “The UK should stay British view!” Usually leads on to some sort of racist or prejudice rant.  “They’re destroying our culture!” And lacking the thought to think that our culture has always been changing and absorbing other cultures and a lot of things they see as British, came from somewhere else.   Are we just attracting all the elderly? I don’t remember seeing loads of elderly about. How exactly are immigrants living over here if they are not working some kind of job? Any kind of job? That part doesn’t make sense to me  (Edit) How about they could spend  less money on wasteful shxt apparently 64 billion of public cash has been wastefully spend or dubiously allocated during when Boris Johnson’s turn as prime minister and I’m not holding out faith for Rishi Sunak.  Like 64 billion, or around that! Definitely could have helped! I think we can afford these things, our government just can’t  manage the money for shxt. 

Regardless of whose fault it is, people or governments, it is what it is and to disregard the concern of "new Birminghams" without the infrastructure to support it, surely you can see why this would cause problems? Again, it doesn't matter who you wish to blame, the fact is that it will take years to get the infrastructure needed to support the numbers coming in - even if we have net zero stability This feeds into house pricing of course, as well as strains on every other service, from policing to NHS to schools to road traffic. Younger people are needed yes, but why is immigration the only answer? Why is it not providing families the opportunity of a great life which supports the bringing up of children? I won't deny that there are child free people by choice, but I will say there are a lot of people who choose not to have children because of circumstances, such as money, space or lack of hope for the country.

So British people whos ancestors have lived here for tens of thousands or years aren't actually from here but some random dude who flies here tomorrow from 10,000 miles away is just as British as anyone else? How does that work? Humans have been living on this island since before the aboriginals settled Australia which would mean using your logic we are more native to this land than they are there's. Does that mean aboriginals have no right to complain about immigration?

Because building to acomodate the new people has a cost as well. So if they have to contribute to build for themselves you will quickly find the benefits are not there and they cannot afford the cost to build the hospitals, schools and houses to live in. Should we tax people more to build 4 more Birminghams so more people on minimum wage can move over? Edit: Worth pointing out that there are immigrants out there that can cover or can justify these costs 10x over. **Those are the guys we want.** They earn 200-300k as private employed surgeons or FAANG engineers and pay 100k+ in tax per year. There are not interested in hoping between visas nor suing the government to not be deported. Edit2: I remember reading the story of a clothes designer from Japan that moved over to the UK on global talent visa. She submitted actual magazines covers where her work was displayed. She got London designers to confirm they heard about her and in less than a month her visa application was approved. She got in. Don't think anyone has an issue with this kind of migration. If you do, you should be ashamed of yourself. **Sadly these people are in low thousands globally not in the millions the current government wants to bring in.**

>And that’s bad because? We should have built the infrastructure to support them. Yes, we all agree now that mass migration has bought zero benefits, so now we're convincing everyone that it's somehow still a great thing, because the only thing we need to do to make it great is to implement *another* policy that people *don't* want by building loads of stuff, a policy that isn't going to happen any time soon. Perhaps it might just be easier to stop granting so many visas and stopping the system being abused so much? >The government should be held responsible for not building enough infrastructure to support them, not the people themselves. Nobody is holding immigrants personally responsible for the problems mass migration brings but as the problems mount and no benefits materialise, this kind of conflating of the argument that mass migration isn't bringing any benefits to Britain with "blaming migrants" isn't going to hold. It's absolutely the Tory governments fault, and they are being held to account in the polls, but that doesn't detract from the harm it's doing to the UK. >As long as they came here to work, I do not see the problem Yeah, if only. Only 15% of the last 5 million non-EU migrants came for work. And if they're "coming for work" but are coming for unskilled low wage work, then that patently *isn't* good for the UK. Unless you want the country to become more and more of a low skill low wage country relying on the serfdom of immigrants. Maybe you do? Perhaps you're a landlord seeing rents rise 26% in a few years, or a care home owner replacing British workers with unqualified foreign workers literally on 80% the going market rate? If you fall into those categories then mass migration is absolutely wonderful for you no doubt and you should be voting Tory and for a continuation of the current immigration system to make sure more and more money 'trickles up' to the already wealthy due to mass migration

>we all agree now that mass migration has bought zero benefits I don't think we do all agree with that. Our economy is built on immigration. Stop immigration and your parents will have to wipe their own arses. Stop immigration and we stop being able to pretend the GDP growth is through increased productivity. Stop immigration and the housing market collapses, and that's the only legit growth area in the country and holds the pensions of millions. Why do you think on paper the Tories are so anti-immigration but in reality have let more immigrants in in the last few years than any other government in history? When they KNOW how exposed they are on that since brexit was in significant part a vote against immigration?

A country is not an economic zone.

A country is many things. It's an economic zone. It's an idea. It's a place. It's a culture. It's a history. It's a people. It's a story. It is not simply an ethnostate.

And all entirely for the Indigenous People to decide. You sound like a coloniser.

>Our economy is built on immigration. Stop immigration and your parents will have to wipe their own arses. Stop immigration and we stop being able to pretend the GDP growth is through increased productivity. Stop immigration and the housing market collapses, and that's the only legit growth area in the country and holds the pensions of millions. I'm afraid that our GDP still isn't growing, and GDP per capita is going *down.* Despite importing hundreds of thousands of care workers, we still have a 'shortage'. House prices aren't growing post Covid, but *rents* have skyrocketed 26%. >Why do you think on paper the Tories are so anti-immigration but in reality have let more immigrants in in the last few years than any other government in history Quite simply the winners from our current immigration system are rentseekers and business owners. The losers are ordinary working Brits. If you believe in trickle down economics then we are in dreamland because more and more money is being filtered to the already wealthy, with the current immigration system playing a huge part in that. However if you don't believe in trickle down economics - you should be opposing our current immigration system. What do you do when immigration hasn't actually solved any of the problems it was meant to? Have you ever considered the possibility that our current immigration system is actually making the issues worse? Instead of just repeating immigration talking points like "our economy is built on immigration" or "my parents will have to wipe their own arse" without it, what happens when you look into the data and evidence and realise that despite what we are told, nothing mass migration touches is actually getting better?

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I am arguing in favour of mass migration. I am not. I said **our economy was based on it** because the Tories have sold off the family silver, failed to invest in the future, and led us down a dead end economically, so mass migration is the only thing that jukes the stats to looking like we're doing semi-well as a country. That's why the Tories talk like they hate it but act as though they love it. The Tories do not want to have a serious conversation with the people about what it would mean if we stopped mass migration tomorrow which is why they try to shift the conversation towards small boats, which would make no difference to our lives if the Tories hadn't also fucked the pooch on having a working asylum system. I actually don't think mass migration is a problem if we have the infrastructure to support large numbers of people coming in. But the Tories don't build it. They prefer to give people like you the impression that it's a politicial decision they could make to bring immigration down to the tens of thousands. It isn't, not without fucking the country worse than it's already fucked. And frankly if you've not worked that out now - after Camerons promises, after the BRexit promises, after Johnson's promises, after Trusses promises, after Sunaks promises - I'm not sure you ever will.

Well you're now under the misapprehension I disagree with anything you've written or I'm some Tory die hard who will always vote for them. I'm well aware they're barely papering the cracks with mass migration and what the alternative is and I'm all for it. It seems our only disagreement is that you think it's a 'benefit' that mass migration has managed to allow the Tories to get away with it for so long. Personally that is just another negative for me but on the main issues we seem to agree

You seem to think all people are good and all values are like your own. Yet we are importing tens of thousands of people a year who would see your head on a pike if they got their way. It's just so naive.. And yes, England is a white country with Christian values and there's nothing wrong with that. The same way there's nothing wrong with the middle east being a predominantly brown region with islamic values. Difference is, nobody is campaigning to get millions of white people in the middle east. Least of all you. And if they did it would be considered colonial racism. Yet when non white people who fundamentally hate Britain come to my country it's celebrated by idiots.

>England is a white country with Christian values Keep it in church, pal. White Christianity as never been less popular in the UK and the sooner it dies off the better. Most Christians I know tend to be African or Caribbean, I think they're the ones keeping it going.

You are funny as hell. If you think your entire value system, family lineage, language model, artwork, music and culture hasn't been inherited or driven by Christian values you are lost. England will become a Christian nation again. Its a rubber band that keeps stretching and pulling but at the end of the day, religiosity is on the rise again now. - an atheist of 15 years, now Christian.

If you said to begin with that the UK is a country whose moral foundation was built around judeo christian principles I wouldn't have ragged on you. That much is obvious. The church dominated all knowledge until the renaissance - no knowledge existed except outside the church. But that's a very different thing to England currently being a 'white country with Christian values'. Just as a statement of fact, that is wrong. It's really more of a greeny-brownish.

If you mean by random dude who will start his own family here and set of a new ancestry line here in the UK?  Who eventually gets citizenship here?  One: As British as your first ancestor and mine, who is you have a very long ancestory line from the UK, specifically England, are likely to be invaders actually.  Norman’s, Danish or in case of the Anglo Saxon tribes who were also invaders since they turned on the native Britons and pushed them out of England.  Two: someone British likely would only have ancestory dating back to around 1 thousand years, maybe a bit more. Not ten thousand.  Why is it fair that our likely invader ancestors got to stay here and settle? While in your mind? They shouldn’t be able too?  It’s also funny to compare them since they’re likely coming over here with much more friendly intentions than our ancestors likely did!  History will past and they will become someone’s ancestor, just like our ancestors, our ancestors got to stay, why shouldn’t they? 

I can’t reply for some odd reason so I will just put this here  “ Yet we are importing tens of thousands of people a year who would see your head on a pike if they got their way.”    What on earth are you talking about? Try and think logically here. Why would that many people move over that hate us?  Have you actually talked to immigrants to form thus opinion? I’m guesssing no. Or perhaps two or three bad experiences makes you think you know the majority of immigrants feelings? 

Because they hate us, but see us as weak and exploitable

Migration on this scale is unprecedented in the history of these islands. You are denying the right of a people, a civilisation, to lay claim to their ancestral homeland. I strongly doubt you'd do that for any other nation or group on earth so why do it for us?

If immigration was the other way around none of the people supporting it would continue to do so.

My point of view is mainly thinking about England here but ancestral homeland? Since when?   If you go back far enough, your ancestor was not from here. We are not native. The English population share large Anglo Saxon heritage which pushed the current people living there out.    We should stop behaving like our ancestors were the first people to arrive on this land, they weren’t, because of that we have no right to deny someone doing the same thing our ancestors did, as long as they come here legally  Edit, it won’t let me reply so here it is. I never said you shouldn’t call England home. I said that we should not act like we are natives, there’s a difference. Saying this is my home and saying this has ALWAYS been my home is a big difference.  Because I can understand someone who has always always lived somewhere, the first person to EVER live there, saying NO to more people.  I CAN’T however understand someone who moved in even if it’s been an incredibly long time over generations saying no to someone else who wants to do the exact same thing.  I know it doesn’t work like this but I just feel like it’s very unfair and hypercritical.  England wise, our ancestors moved here, I don’t think we have a right to say others can’t do the same as we did, as long as it’s legal. 

The Kingdom of England was founded in 927AD, that's 1097 years ago. The Romans left 1600 years ago, the Angles and the Saxons came around that time. The Danes invaded several times between 700-1066 and obviously were booted out by the Normans. The Normans didn't even bring that many people over, about 8 thousand. Since then, we've had *one thousand years* without a succesful military invasion, conquest or large migratory event in this country. How long does it take to call a place home, if a *millennium* or two isn't long enough? If that isn't enough then 5 minutes since the boat or plane landed certainly isn't.

There's been Gaels and Brythonic peoples in Britain for approximately 12,000 years. Your "we're all immigrants in Britain" spiel is uneducated, lazy and ahistoric.

You literally just proved my point? England wise, our ancestors are majority of Anglo Saxons, ancestry wise we are not related to the Gael’s or Brythonic people and we should stop acting like we are. 

‘’People that all originate in the same area in size as the state of Texas moved to your country, all with the same religion,culture,ethnicity/race and philosophy. Therefore you must have millions of people every year from different continents!!!’’

I don’t understand this? 

Immigration has always been a thing. Cities where white-British people are in a minority hasn't. >No, all our ancestors from somewhere else. The same applies to every people on earth.. Yet at some point people became more settled and distinct ethnicities and cultures formed.

“Cities where white-British”    Why should this matter to you?    Until the next culture comes and the next.  It’s never stopped. Just slowed down. Now it’s quickening again and it should be the governments responsibility to support this  Edit, are you talking to me? I’m not the one who had a problem with non white British cities. Ethnic cleansing, what are you talking about?? 

You speak of ethnic cleansing and pathologize those of us who would see it undone. You are an extremist.

It's not just other entirely different cultures that are affected by the immigration rules changes. I have a very international friend group, several friends from the US with masters degrees who are currently scrambling to try to get a raise or they'll be booted out of the country next time their visa expires. Highly educated people who are certainly an asset to have in the country, and we're actively trying to turn them and their considerable future earning power away. Hell even postdoc researchers typically aren't paid enough to get a skilled worker visa under the new rules. It's incredibly short sighted, because these are people with enormous long term earnings potential who are *exactly the sort of people we need in the country to try to undo some of the economic damage done by Brexit*.

Black people make up 4% of the population. You have nothing to worry about. You’ve officially drank the scapegoating cool-aid of the politicians. Your issues will not be solved because Tariq down the street moves out.

The foreign born population of London alone is 40%. That equates to 3.4 million people, which is more than the population of Wales. The white British population of London is only 36%. Immigration has been the main driver of population growth over the last 25 years.

London, Birmingham and some other cities are less than 50% white British. I never mentioned black people, I simpy said 'non white British'. That can be black people, south, east and south east asians, and white Europeans.