Since when does a 5 year cap = ban all immigration for ever?
A 5 year stop, in order to take stock and plan for the future housing needs and general infastructure seems quite resonable to me. I take it you're quite happy with the current status?
You are being deliberately misleading. You asked when Farage said that he is against all immigration. He has said that he is, for a period of five years
There has been a large population difference and improved transport allowing for an increase in immigration. Please define what you mean by 'relative trickle', preferably with verified statistics.
Perhaps you might like to look here. You will see that immigration is not particularly high by historical levels and that the whole measure is considerably more complicated than you are willing to accept
Strange you STILL haven't commented on the Professor's background and political views which could conceivably have altered his treatment of the statistics ?
If they're the ramblings of a biased racist it should be quite straight forward and simple to find something to refute his claims without delving into conspiracy theories. If you think he has altered the statistics why don't you show something to back it up instead of dismissing it on what if's and maybe's.
You are being deliberately misleading. You asked when Farage said that he is against all immigration. He has said that he is, for a period of five years
Yep ALL immigration = EVER
A 5 year cap does not equate to ALL immigration EVER
Wikipedia has become a far more respectable source in recent years - gone are the days of just anyone making up anything and adding it without it being clear that it is unsourced. At any rate, it is better than nothing.
Yep ALL immigration = EVER
A 5 year cap does not equate to ALL immigration EVER
Nonsense. "All" does not equate to "ever". They are not synonymous. If I say I am going on a diet and intend to cut out ALL soft drinks, that means I am going to cut out all soft drinks for the period of the diet - not for the rest of my life.
There's no doubt that the acceleration in UKIP support is down to a raw nerve being touched among the white Brits.
It doesn't point to an overall acceptance of immigration among the indigenous population.
It still is more a cross over from Right wing tories to UKIP, rather than Labour/LibDems over to them. Obviously there is also the death of BNP and who there 3-5% of supporters are now voting for.
There's no doubt that the acceleration in UKIP support is down to a raw nerve being touched among the white Brits.
It doesn't point to an overall acceptance of immigration among the indigenous population.
Actually, I'd say that the 'raw nerve' is Europe rather than immigration (although there are crossovers). Rather than immigration per se, UKIP have been long keen to portray the EU as a monstrous institution which is soaking up money and curtailing the civil liberties of British people and the British parliament (ably supported by the Eurosceptic media). They're tapping into that, I think, more than fears about immigration. That's a secondary string to their bow.
The UK is being Invaded and our traitor politicaians are doing nothing to stop it, we were never asked.
Are you sure about that? Immigration never came up in the elections of 1945, 1951 and on? I doubt that!
How many policies do go to referendums anyway? This Government has made the biggest changes to the NHS and the benefits system since they where created, where they asked about let alone go to a referendum?
We elect politicians to represent us, if you want differently, either stand yourself, join a party and try and get what you want in place or create another party etc etc.
Wikipedia has become a far more respectable source in recent years - gone are the days of just anyone making up anything and adding it without it being clear that it is unsourced. At any rate, it is better than nothing.
Yep I suppose It's always very 'reliable' when using it for certain political viewpoints :rolleyes: with others it'll be discounted.
In 53 years time some of those 'non-whites' will have been here for over a hundred years, such as the people who arrived in the Windrush era. I wonder if people will still be calling them unintegrated immigrants?
I hear you. By then those commonwealth generations would have been about 6 or 7 generations down the line too and some people will still probably see them as unintegrated immigrants and if there is a Labour Government in 2053, they will probably be accused of letting in all "the immigrants" from that point on! :rolleyes:
There has been a large population difference and improved transport allowing for an increase in immigration. Please define what you mean by 'relative trickle', preferably with verified statistics.
Perhaps you might like to look here. You will see that immigration is not particularly high by historical levels and that the whole measure is considerably more complicated than you are willing to accept
I think the Norman conquest was a pretty big event, and since you believe they migrated en masse:rolleyes: what other seismic mass immigrations have there been over the centuries, apart from the 50000 Hugenots in the 1690's?
I think the Norman conquest was a pretty big event, and since you believe they migrated en masse:rolleyes: what other seismic mass immigrations have there been over the centuries, apart from the 50000 Hugenots in the 1690's?
Read the article that I linked to, there is a wealth of information there. You might want to try and understand it before claiming anything
Comments
You are being deliberately misleading. You asked when Farage said that he is against all immigration. He has said that he is, for a period of five years
Wikipedia:rolleyes:
If they're the ramblings of a biased racist it should be quite straight forward and simple to find something to refute his claims without delving into conspiracy theories. If you think he has altered the statistics why don't you show something to back it up instead of dismissing it on what if's and maybe's.
Yep ALL immigration = EVER
A 5 year cap does not equate to ALL immigration EVER
Do you have any contradictory evidence? No, of course you don't. So don't try and brush it off just because it disagrees with your prejudices.
Wikipedia has become a far more respectable source in recent years - gone are the days of just anyone making up anything and adding it without it being clear that it is unsourced. At any rate, it is better than nothing.
It is a five year cap on all immigration. I should have known better, as we found earlier that your definitions are really rather poor
Wikipedia is a fantastic resource actually. The vast majority of it is referenced and the people involved usually try to be neutral.
Nonsense. "All" does not equate to "ever". They are not synonymous. If I say I am going on a diet and intend to cut out ALL soft drinks, that means I am going to cut out all soft drinks for the period of the diet - not for the rest of my life.
It doesn't point to an overall acceptance of immigration among the indigenous population.
It still is more a cross over from Right wing tories to UKIP, rather than Labour/LibDems over to them. Obviously there is also the death of BNP and who there 3-5% of supporters are now voting for.
Actually, I'd say that the 'raw nerve' is Europe rather than immigration (although there are crossovers). Rather than immigration per se, UKIP have been long keen to portray the EU as a monstrous institution which is soaking up money and curtailing the civil liberties of British people and the British parliament (ably supported by the Eurosceptic media). They're tapping into that, I think, more than fears about immigration. That's a secondary string to their bow.
Are you sure about that? Immigration never came up in the elections of 1945, 1951 and on? I doubt that!
How many policies do go to referendums anyway? This Government has made the biggest changes to the NHS and the benefits system since they where created, where they asked about let alone go to a referendum?
We elect politicians to represent us, if you want differently, either stand yourself, join a party and try and get what you want in place or create another party etc etc.
Yep I suppose It's always very 'reliable' when using it for certain political viewpoints :rolleyes: with others it'll be discounted.
Not the victim card again? Ye Gods and little fishes - talk about a persecution complex!
I hear you. By then those commonwealth generations would have been about 6 or 7 generations down the line too and some people will still probably see them as unintegrated immigrants and if there is a Labour Government in 2053, they will probably be accused of letting in all "the immigrants" from that point on! :rolleyes:
I think the Norman conquest was a pretty big event, and since you believe they migrated en masse:rolleyes: what other seismic mass immigrations have there been over the centuries, apart from the 50000 Hugenots in the 1690's?
The government does, their own projections seem to mirror his up to 2030 iirc.
Read the article that I linked to, there is a wealth of information there. You might want to try and understand it before claiming anything
As in the 1950s classic Invasion of the Body Snatchers ?
We are asked at a regular intervals via elections to choose members of the House of Commons.
and nor should we.
The UK is parliamentary democracy with no role for referenda.
No I'm fully aware of who came here,when and why, I'm asking you.
I assume this line of thinking applies to budget cuts as well?