Farage highlighting illegal migration chaos

ohnonotgmail

kenmm wrote: »

The first to go what?

Have ethnic communities? Would Kilburn or other areas with a high Irish-Catholic populations not have been first 'to go'?

yeah but they are white so they dont count.

kenmm

Arthur Daley wrote: »

The old 'sure the Irish went everywhere' argument. Godwin's law for migration debates

Maybe so, but does it lessen the point?

RandomName2

Arthur Daley wrote: »

The old 'sure the Irish went everywhere' argument. Godwin's law for migration debates

No, no, to give it its due there is actually a point there. If Irish immigration wasn't an issue, why would immigration from any other sector?

First I'd say that it wasn't without its problems. London Irish, who saw themselves as distinct from the people who they found themselves around, was not an entirely equitable situation, particularly when the Irish predominantly found themselves in the position of navvies. Destitution and criminality was more common among this demographic than in the 'native' population.

And yet, that was when the barriers to integration were almost as low as you can go. We had a common language, religion (notwithstanding obedience to Rome), huge overlap of culture, and the same race. It's taken a couple of generations for London Irish to proudly call themselves British, and I'd say some do with a degree of trepidation still.

On the whole the relationship of Irish emigration to London was mutually beneficial though. Irish found work (well, most did at least) and Ireland got rid of the population it wouldn't be able to provide employment for.

Tell me how

Arthur Daley wrote: »

The old 'sure the Irish went everywhere' argument. Godwin's law for migration debates

Do you realise how obvious this comment makes it that you want to ignore any facts which undermine your story?

The Irish did go everywhere. Often illegally. Often unwanted. Often grew very Irish-centric communities.

ancapailldorcha

RandomName2 wrote: »

There's no point saying that something is or is not something when the something in question is ill-defined and personal. No-go areas in cities generally are socio-economic in nature, with ill defined geographies. It is no point in saying something exists, or is a myth, when the metric that one is using to do so is itself so flawed.

Yes there is. I can either go somewhere safely or not within reasonable expectations. Given that no evidence has provided for the no-go areas myth, I can dismiss it as such.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Your subjectivity is as tiring as your prickliness. You speak for London no more than the other poster. I honestly find that either of you are from London entirely irrelevant to the conversation. High horse and anecdotal information doesn't really add much.

You accused me of acting like a gatekeeper. I never claimed to speak for London. Anecdotes are no substitute for data. Feel free to post some.

Arthur Daley

kenmm wrote: »

Maybe so, but does it lessen the point?

So in the context of this thread, the Irish legally migrated to Kilburn etc. So Britain should allow boats of illegal migration to come into Dover?

We know where I stand, what do you suggest?

Tell me how

Arthur Daley wrote: »

So in the context of this thread, the Irish legally migrated to Kilburn etc. So Britain should allow boats of illegal migration to come into Dover?

We know where I stand, what do you suggest?

I already posted a suggestion.

Tell me how wrote: »

• Rejoin the EU.
• Actively contribute to a coordinated effort to deal with the issue of migrants collectively rather than leaving it to the countries on the southern borders to deal with the issue.
• Engage with governments in countries from which people are migrating to do more to prevent them leaving through providing some sort of ring fenced aid to help people who think a life threatening journey is a better option.

P.S. I'm not suggesting because the Irish did anything, anything specifically should happen, but that you can't just ignore that fact.

Sonics2k

kenmm wrote: »

There are many parts of the UK (and Ire) I wouldn't feel particularly comfortable in because the locals would be enough (To be blunt, because they are rough estates etc).

I haven't witnessed the same purely because of migrants. Generally my direct experience of any problems with immigrants in the UK have been caused by natives giving abuse to the immigrants.

I mean, let's be fair here, there's parts of Ireland and the UK which have been dodgy and dangerous for decades. After moving from England at age 9 I lived in Knocknaheeny in Cork, which has always been an absolute dump and dangerous to boot.

Knocka basically got so bad the papers don't even report on the various fires, fights, stolen cars and break ins anymore and most guards won't do patrols there anymore.

Arthur Daley

Arguably Britain could work with the southern European countries without the need to join the EU.

But yes, the actions of Blair and Cameron in particular have a link to what is happening on the Kent coast.

kenmm

Arthur Daley wrote: »

So in the context of this thread, the Irish legally migrated to Kilburn etc. So Britain should allow boats of illegal migration to come into Dover?

We know where I stand, what do you suggest?

I don't have a suggestion, its an international issue that requires a lot of coordination and funding. I am not an expert in this field.

I don't believe that whipping people up into a frenzy (including, but not limited to talk about invasions, no go areas, stereotyping etc) or using the issue for political point scoring (or worse to further ones own personal political career) is beneficial or acceptable and we should be demanding more from our "leaders".

But instead the usual conversational lines play to people fears and fuels more hatred, fear and misunderstanding (and allows those in charge to progress their own personal agendas while doing fu(k all for the actual issues - i.e. how to effectively deal with immigration and its effects).

Arthur Daley

Very often what you classify as 'whipping people into a frenzy' is because of the need to be heard. Because the media is refusing to have these debates.

So Farage was out raising this issue weeks ago to a wall of silence. The BBC news eventually had to report on it and Madame Home Secretary headed out on a boat yesterday for a photo op to try persuade the public she would 'get tough'.

If the media did their job in the first place Nigel Farage wouldn't need to 'whip up a frenzy'.

Danzy

It's a strange one.

People on the left are radical free marketers, much further than Thatcher ever went for, when it comes to migration.

Tell me how

Arthur Daley wrote: »

Very often what you classify as 'whipping people into a frenzy' is because of the need to be heard. Because the media is refusing to have these debates.

So Farage was out raising this issue weeks ago to a wall of silence. The BBC news eventually had to report on it and Madame Home Secretary headed out on a boat yesterday for a photo op to try persuade the public she would 'get tough'.

If the media did their job in the first place Nigel Farage wouldn't need to 'whip up a frenzy'.

The media is now doing Farages work for him in not focusing on the most important issues facing Britain but instead sending ships out to cover this in a voyeuristic manner.

I bet the thought has crossed the mind of some of the producers that wouldn't it make a perfect video if they caught a boat actually collapsing.

Arthur Daley

Danzy wrote: »

It's a strange one.

People on the left are radical free marketers, much further than Thatcher ever went for, when it comes to migration.

Which is why many smell a rat

Tell me how

Danzy wrote: »

It's a strange one.

People on the left are radical free marketers, much further than Thatcher ever went for, when it comes to migration.

That is not the case. There are outliers, but for the most part people recognize controlled immigration but also humanitarian issues or dealing with real issues through appropriate action and governance instead of baseless rhetoric the type of which Trump employed in relation to building a wall which has been a complete failure.

Gregor Samsa

Deleted User wrote: »

And there's absolutely no indication that immigration is responsible for the drop in eel eating.

Even the English don't want to eat them:

On a sunny evening, by the Thames, content editor Richard Duggan, a self-confessed "lover of sea food", stepped up to the plate, which in this case is a cold styrofoam cup filled with jellied eels.

Richard anticipated he would taste sea water, but immediately retched when the eel hit his toungue. His body convulsed towards the railing overlooking the Thames but he managed to keep the eel in.

Just as he recovers though, his arms go to jelly (sorry) and he drops the cup.

It's a moment of pure joy for all of us.

Jellied eels are disgusting, it was settled, and we could all go home

https://www.mylondon.news/whats-on/food-drink-news/tried-bringing-jellied-eels-back-16294327

biko

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Invasion indeed.

I don't agree with your word "invasion" as it's not a campaign per se.
But it would be interesting to hear your number for when illegal immigration becomes a problem.

In 2005 UK Home Office estimated there were 430,000 people in the country with no right to remain.

In 2019 BBC counted 800.000 to 1.2 million.

In 2020 Home Office 'has no idea how many people are in the UK illegally'.

Is a million illegals a problem?
Is not knowing the number a problem?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50420307
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/17/home-office-has-no-idea-how-many-people-are-in-the-uk-illegally

biko

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Even the English don't want to eat them

Well they did in East End for a 100 years

You should try them before they are gone. Or just do the pie, mash and liquor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAecgK1Xr1I

Gentlemanne

biko wrote: »

Yes, London East End is famous for jellied eels and the places selling them are now going.
This is the point Yellow_Fern was making and he's right.
These days burgers and kebabs are a more popular fast food.

I don't know why you are guessing, but that's what you're doing.

Extremely funny to me that the idea of some grand cultural erosion is that people would rather have something unequivocally delicious like kebabs or burger and not some disgusting eels in jelly

RandomName2

Danzy wrote: »

It's a strange one.

People on the left are radical free marketers, much further than Thatcher ever went for, when it comes to migration.

statesaver

Dan has a point.

https://twitter.com/danieljohnsalt/status/1293099198683000832

Tell me how

statesaver wrote: »

Dan has a point.

https://twitter.com/danieljohnsalt/status/1293099198683000832

No he doesn't.

Farage is showing is apathy for the majority of UK citizens through allowing the government to under perform on their Covid response, to place friends of favourable media groups in to the house of Lords and backtracking on the Brexit Withdrawal agreement, which they negotiated while distracting both the media and the public from these events by pretending that they were being attacked.

ancapailldorcha

suicide_circus wrote: »

Yes cultures do evolve. London's culture is currently evolving away from..let's call it "indigenous english"..and towards a mixed international and transient one. This is not a new phenomenon but it is hastening. All over the world loss of indigenous culture is seen as a sad thing...but not in western europe for some reason.

I disagree. London has always been multicultural. I certainly wouldn't call it "indigenous english" as that's ridiculous given its history. I also see no sign whatsoever that English culture is dying. Ditto for any other Western European culture.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I disagree. London has always been multicultural. I certainly wouldn't call it "indigenous english" as that's ridiculous given its history. I also see no sign whatsoever that English culture is dying. Ditto for any other Western European culture.

Also plenty of the immigrants to the UK have been from places that the UK colonised. Plenty of Indian or Pakistani families have lived in the UK for generations so they are British by any metric. So neighbourhoods that are ethnically Indian etc is akin to Chinatown in New York. And they're not remotely recent. Also lost on why they're even viewed as a negative thing tbh.

statesaver

Tell me how wrote: »

No he doesn't.

Farage is showing is apathy for the majority of UK citizens through allowing the government to under perform on their Covid response, to place friends of favourable media groups in to the house of Lords and backtracking on the Brexit Withdrawal agreement, which they negotiated while distracting both the media and the public from these events by pretending that they were being attacked.

Jesus, the guy is highlighting illegals entering the Uk, something the government should be curtailing and media reporting. What you posted above sounds like some conspiracy theory. No wonder he achieved Brexit.

RandomName2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I disagree. London has always been multicultural.

Quite the contrary. For most of its existence London has tended to be a moderate sized monocultural city. It is only in the second half of the 20th century that it became predominantly multicultural.



Going by current estimates, half of all Londoners will be foreign born by 2031

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/half-of-londoners-will-be-foreign-born-by-2031-0dc3wd66g2p

So when we see massive recent influx in terms om immigration into the UK, of course London is disproportionately affected



To say that there is a historical parallel for this in relation to London is of course ridiculous, unless one is going to say that migration from the British countryside to London is analogous.

Hotblack Desiato

Arthur Daley wrote: »

In London some of the areas around the airports and the run down parts of the east end/City were the first to go. Places like Southall in the 70s, near Heathrow and Brick Lane near the city/east end but not prime city centre. I'd expect the same or we are seeing similar in Dublin in the 2010s/20s

Awful bang of "there goes the neighbourhood" off that, isn't there?

https://youtu.be/ShQm4GHkrWo?t=104

Tell me how

RandomName2 wrote: »

To say that there is a historical parallel for this in relation to London is of course ridiculous, unless one is going to say that migration from the British countryside to London is analogous.

Those figures for the UK are less than the comparative figures for both Ireland and the US.

In all cases proving that said countries are far from being overrun with foreigners as many claim.

RandomName2

Tell me how wrote: »

In all cases proving that said countries are far from being overrun with foreigners as many claim.

It feels like there's a missing first half to that statement.

I didn't say 'overrun'. Overrun would imply a majority were foreigners, and as I said, London is a few years away from that.

However an exponential growth curve should be obvious even to a casual observer.

Das Reich

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's just bollox.

I live here and it's nothing like that.

But I have many Brazilians friends living there and they all say that, amy reason should I believe in you and not on them?