|
|
|
|
|
|
by Amezarak
410 days ago
|
|
|
They are there because the British government made a deliberate policy decision to bring them there. It is perfectly reasonable to ask if this policy decision was in the best interests of the populace at large. Immigration (and emigration) are not sacred cows above political debate. Nor did the existence of the British Empire necessitate it; that's simply a post-hoc rationalization of the policies that British politicians implemented. I realize that in England you are not allowed to think in these terms - it's all unmitigated good and beyond the pale to even consider it as anything but the just deserts of...whoever, but that doesn't actually make it so. I also don't think it's productive to pretend British is not an ethnicity as well as a nationality. Being born in England does not make you ethnically English and isn't racist to say so, anymore than being born in India made Kipling Indian. Even in terms of culture or nationality it seems pretty meaningless when you don't have strict assimilationist policies. |
|
|
jesus so you do not actually know the history of your own country. Travel and emigration between Commonwealth states has a number of conditions, that while easier to navigate that complete immigration are still conditional on a huge number of factors.
> It is perfectly reasonable to ask if this policy decision was in the best interests of the populace at large.
considering every economic metric has increased since the 1950s and that since the 2008 recession economic growth is basically linear with immigration numbers, one would easily argue that yes. the primary interest of the population is the economy, the economy grows with immigration thus those two are convergent interests.
> Immigration (and emigration) are not sacred cows above political debate
sure, but not understanding why there are asian people in the UK, not understanding colonialism, not understanding migration patterns, or how immigration ACTUALLY works (they do not bring them over, they come themselves). Means that it is less of a debate and more of a class I would have to teach to get you up to speed first.
The reason you do not debate quantum physics with a 4 year old are not because they are beyond debate
> Nor did the existence of the British Empire necessitate it
it is debatable whether there is a moral requierement over conquered countries. Many empires would argue that citizenship is inarguable, as you are a colony, you are roman or macedonian. other empires would not allow full citizenship but allow travel and belonging to the empire, such as the spanish and british empires. Some more critical political actors would argue that once you conquer someone and subjogate them you have a responsability and a debt to that people.
however you cut it, the existance of the british rule over india and pakistan inexcusably link both countries, to the point where people moving between them is so expected it might as well be a necessity.
> that's simply a post-hoc rationalization of the policies that British politicians implemented.
no the discussions of the structure, and belonging of the countries and citizens of the commonwealth predate the political policies that increased migration by centuries
> I realize that in England you are not allowed to think in these terms
reform was ahead of the polls last year, the daily mirror and the sun are the most read newspapers. Why are you all so absurdly whinny about how you are not allowed to do what you actiively do and think and say every day.
> it's all unmitigated good and beyond the pale to even consider it
In what universe is this the case? Anti immigration platforms have had a strong support in the uk for decades. This country started the skin head movement as a far right, nativist, racist violent subculture. None of that makes any sense in a country where people cant even consider immigration as nothing but positive
> I also don't think it's productive to pretend British is not an ethnicity as well as a nationality.
and you can think that, but that does not make people not native or not english. you can say they are culturally not english, or have asian heritage. But that does not make someone foreign born, or not native.
Most british people now are way less "ethnically" british than 50 years ago. Cockney is gone, chinese and indian have replaced chippies and eel pies as working class takeaways, the conservative party has had 3 women and an indian guy in a row, the mayor of the city which brings all the money in has indian heritage.
And you can feel threatened by that, but Southport and Costwolds bring fuck all to the economy nowadays, regardless of how much you mystithise the posh brit with his hunting jacket and greyhound.
> Even in terms of culture or nationality it seems pretty meaningless when you don't have strict assimilationist policies.
yeah no, none of them have assimilated, there is no way you can find asian people in british pubs, running pubs, running councils, running the country, heading banks and hospitals. You will never find a british indian doctor, its crazy all they do is dance bollywood songs and make grooming gangs. If not for you and your brave opinions no one would have ever said anythign. How brave of you to just repeat racist lies, say that 10% of the people of the country cant assimilate and take no pride in the history of your own country or understanding of the history and significance of the commonwealth agreements