[defrost]

I doubt few are arguing that various Africans should be punished by losing their traditional farming land of many generations because of the iceberg lettuce consuming actions of others they are unaware of.

None the less it continues to happen.

[extraisland]

They are not talking about the Africans. They are talking about the British.

Immigration has had many negative effects on social cohesion in the UK. That is just an unfortunate fact. That is obvious if you have lived in poorer areas of some the cities in the UK.

When this subject is normally broached on TV channels such as the BBC. The argument often put forth is that we should accept large amounts of immigration because of the the British Empire and the wars in the Middle-East. It is often framed as if we should accept it as a form of punishment.

[crikeykangaroo]

Well, I wouldn't say punishment is exactly fair... But your government did not pay for reparations either, while at the same time, your government does hold other countries for doing so in their own wars (validly so).

[extraisland]

> Well, I wouldn't say punishment is exactly fair

That is how many of the left talk about it. Some are more coy than others, but nonetheless that is the theme.

I certainly don't care for it and I certainly doesn't endear me to anyone making the argument.

> But your government did not pay for reparations either, while at the same time, your government does hold other countries for doing so in their own wars (validly so).

So? The vast majority of the people in country had nothing to do with those events.

[crikeykangaroo]

Well... Too bad the government is (supposedly?) democratically elected by its people? Such actions may have consequences.

[extraisland]

That unfortunately is a common fallacy that people engage in.

In the first chapter of "Anatomy of the State" this idea is utterly demolished.

> With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, “we are the government.” The useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If “we are the government,” then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that “we owe it to ourselves”; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is “doing it to himself” and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.

[churchill]

I hear some Brits & immigrants raise that argument and it's the most retarded thing I've ever heard. Can you imagine seeing yourself as a punishment to be inflicted upon someone else?