Quote:
Originally Posted by freezin
...snip....
I don't read the BNP's literature, but I have read UKIP's and don't find anything to support what you have suggested. But if you want to supply a specific policy or quote from UKIP, I'll think again, of course. And as for using emotive languague, you have been at least as guilty of that than I have. But I think we will obviously disagree on that! Just how would you describe immigration at the present level? (Net 180,00 pa.) To describe it as "mass" was not a "trick" at all.  |
The quote you requested -
Link
"
The UKIP's manifesto promises "freedom from overcrowding" by pushing for an "end to mass immigration". It says illegal immigration is out of control and the UKIP would ensure Britain is "no longer the dumping ground for Europe's problems". The document's cover depicts three white babies with the slogan: "Concerned about their future? This is their country, make sure it stays that way." "
re "mass" immigration - 180k net per year, in 20 years that would be 3.2 million (out of the present 60 million) - 5% - new definition of "mass" I hadn't come across before (the Oxford Dictionary defines mass as "a majority of" or "a large number" - when did 5% become a majority or large number?)
And anyway, you are doing the old politician's trick of extrapolating a recent pattern into a fixed pattern for the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freezin
...In believing that people are incapable of making up their own minds after listening to the various commentators, I think you are being particularly patronising.
Mainstream parties without a doubt support immigration at levels are unprecedented in British history. (They even want Turkey in the EU.) I accept that you can't answer for Labour and the Lib Dems, but perhaps you know why the Tories do?
|
If you think I am being patronising in pointing out the difference between informing and inflaming, that is entirely your prerogative. However, you are doing it again, aren't you? - can you show me in any of the manifestos or policies of the parties you have named, that they support "mass immigration" (your words, not mine). I actually think you are being misleading when you present opinions as facts (
Mainstream parties without a doubt support immigration at levels).
Quote:
Originally Posted by freezin
...Yes, it is when comparing like with like, and I can’t really see the point of doing anything else.
11 Bangladesh
14 Republic of China
16 Palestinian territories
19 South Korea
23 Netherlands
26 Lebanon
27 Rwanda
29 Belgium
30 Japan
31 India
32 El Salvador
40 Israel
42 Philippines
46 Vietnam
48 United Kingdom
50 Germany
54 Italy
And with few exceptions (most notably Belgium and the Netherlands) none of those countries have accepted unrestricted immigration on anything even close to the level seen in Britain. And I’d still be interested to hear your thoughts on the quality of life for future inhabitants of this country. (Official predicted population increase of 10 million by 2075.)
|
I thought I had already answered that - I think that the quality of life for future inhabitants of this country will be fine (global warming, fossil fuel depletion notwithstanding); I think they will do what all immigrants to this country have done - blend in, enrich our culture, and become part of Britain.
I am amazed you don't think that countries like the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Israel, Japan is comparing like with like, but that is because, once again, you have used the politician's trick of moving the goalposts - we were initially discussing population density, and you then changed it to immigration levels.
btw, you are doing it again - changing the facts to support your argument - the UK does not have "
unrestricted immigration" - but why let facts get in the way of a polemic, huh?
