|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 29, 2023 15:54:34 GMT
No it isn't, my house wasn't taken away from an indegenous British person. I didn't say your house was specifically taken off anyone (ie transferred forcibly). I said that your added presence means the territorial inheritance of the children of those already resident was reduced. Options and freedoms that would have been theirs, are occupied by you instead. To illustrate the principle examine it in extremis - instead of looking at a single added person, Imagine 100 million. What territorial inheritance reduction? British people were and are entitled to live in Britain. The whole population of Britain is nowhere near 100 million. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 29, 2023 15:58:04 GMT
Racial equality laws were passed in response to racism against ethnic minorities. Asking people their ancestral background can be perfectly innocent but singling out people of immigrant extraction for special treatment by asking them to justify their right to live in their own country or telling them their mere presence or them having children is an act of genocide is divisive bullying. Which kind of illustrates the point being made. It is a matter of historical political record that the electorate have been opposed to any large scale immigration for at least 60 years and probably even longer. It is also in the historical record that government after government ignored this desire by the electorate from whom they had actively sought votes by saying they would limit immigration. In light of this it was also demanded of teh electorate by law that they not only had to accept as equal partners all incomers and children of incomers but that they could not discriminate in their own favour in any way. To pile insult on injury it was demanded that preference should be given to these incomers in law to ensure a proportionality of representation irrespective of general ability and to the exclusion of the children of the original residents. This is clearly evidenced by the educational attainment of young working class white men who are no cast off as of no consequence. Let us say you voted to be in the EU and the government and the opposition continually said we would join over dozens of years and kept not joining would you feel aggrieved and that democracy was not working? Equality laws are designed to prevent discrimination to provide equal opportunity for all. Political parties with aggressive anti-immigration or repatriation policies have been electorally negligible. Being opposed to further immigration doesn't mean opposition to British citizens of immigrant extraction. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 29, 2023 16:13:40 GMT
I didn't say your house was specifically taken off anyone (ie transferred forcibly). I said that your added presence means the territorial inheritance of the children of those already resident was reduced. Options and freedoms that would have been theirs, are occupied by you instead. To illustrate the principle examine it in extremis - instead of looking at a single added person, Imagine 100 million. What territorial inheritance reduction? British people were and are entitled to live in Britain. It seems to me something is blocking basic reasoning here. If an asset is shared by more people, each person has (in aggregation) less. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 29, 2023 16:18:42 GMT
Which kind of illustrates the point being made. It is a matter of historical political record that the electorate have been opposed to any large scale immigration for at least 60 years and probably even longer. It is also in the historical record that government after government ignored this desire by the electorate from whom they had actively sought votes by saying they would limit immigration. In light of this it was also demanded of teh electorate by law that they not only had to accept as equal partners all incomers and children of incomers but that they could not discriminate in their own favour in any way. To pile insult on injury it was demanded that preference should be given to these incomers in law to ensure a proportionality of representation irrespective of general ability and to the exclusion of the children of the original residents. This is clearly evidenced by the educational attainment of young working class white men who are no cast off as of no consequence. Let us say you voted to be in the EU and the government and the opposition continually said we would join over dozens of years and kept not joining would you feel aggrieved and that democracy was not working? Equality laws are designed to prevent discrimination to provide equal opportunity for all. Political parties with aggressive anti-immigration or repatriation policies have been electorally negligible. Being opposed to further immigration doesn't mean opposition to British citizens of immigrant extraction. You managed to ignore the point nicely. I will try again. For over 60 years almost every single party that stood for election had as intended policy that they put to the electorate that immigration control and limitation of immigrants was a particular policy they would follow. The electorate voted for those policies in overwhelming numbers because it was frequently the policy of the losing party as well. That policy was worded in many different ways but amounted to the same thing.Time and again teh majority have been ignored as regards their express wishes. Equality laws may be designed to prevent discrimination but they have the added effect of creating division and actively discriminating against the white population. Whether that effect is deliberate, opportune or unintended is open to debate. Aggressive anti-immigration policies have been the hallmark of most UK manifestoes for 60 years. It is found that the laws favour children of immigrant extraction and that is one factor that is exacerbating the division that the laws created in the first instance. Being a child of immigrant parents should in democratic theory entitle you to the same rights as everyone else, but it does not, it entitles you to rights in law greater than the white majority and the children of that majority. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 29, 2023 18:20:26 GMT
What territorial inheritance reduction? British people were and are entitled to live in Britain. It seems to me something is blocking basic reasoning here. If an asset is shared by more people, each person has (in aggregation) less. Not in this case because nobody was ever entitled to inherit every single square inch of the British isles. It's not like having another sibling and losing a chunk of your inheritance. What material loss have you incurred as a result of the birth of my two mixed race kids? |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 29, 2023 18:22:39 GMT
Equality laws are designed to prevent discrimination to provide equal opportunity for all. Political parties with aggressive anti-immigration or repatriation policies have been electorally negligible. Being opposed to further immigration doesn't mean opposition to British citizens of immigrant extraction. You managed to ignore the point nicely. I will try again. For over 60 years almost every single party that stood for election had as intended policy that they put to the electorate that immigration control and limitation of immigrants was a particular policy they would follow. The electorate voted for those policies in overwhelming numbers because it was frequently the policy of the losing party as well. That policy was worded in many different ways but amounted to the same thing.Time and again teh majority have been ignored as regards their express wishes. Equality laws may be designed to prevent discrimination but they have the added effect of creating division and actively discriminating against the white population. Whether that effect is deliberate, opportune or unintended is open to debate. Aggressive anti-immigration policies have been the hallmark of most UK manifestoes for 60 years. It is found that the laws favour children of immigrant extraction and that is one factor that is exacerbating the division that the laws created in the first instance. Being a child of immigrant parents should in democratic theory entitle you to the same rights as everyone else, but it does not, it entitles you to rights in law greater than the white majority and the children of that majority. "You managed to ignore the point nicely. I will try again. For over 60 years almost every single party that stood for election had as intended policy that they put to the electorate that immigration control and limitation of immigrants was a particular policy they would follow." Governments have failed to deliver countless promises, voting for parties that pledge to reduce immigration is not evidence of hostility towards British citizens of immigrant extraction. "Aggressive anti-immigration policies have been the hallmark of most UK manifestoes for 60 years" Pledging to reduce immigration isn't aggressive anti-immigration policy. No successful political party has pledged to stop immigration entirely or failed to talk about the positives of controlled immigration. "Equality laws may be designed to prevent discrimination but they have the added effect of creating division and actively discriminating against the white population." They were brought in to counter divisive racism against ethnic minorities, where's your proof they actively discriminate against the white population? "Being a child of immigrant parents should in democratic theory entitle you to the same rights as everyone else, but it does not, it entitles you to rights in law greater than the white majority and the children of that majority" Bullshit. Name me the legal rights I have that you don't. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 29, 2023 19:04:42 GMT
What difference does your colour make? The white British live in Britain and don't live (in significant numbers) anywhere else. They can't import more of themselves to act as replacements for some other group present in the British isles, so the broad rule that the British must import outsiders is effectively suicidal for that group - it is insisting that white British have a moral duty to replace themselves in their homeland with another group and this rule will always act to reduce their relative numbers. If you look at the results of the policy, you can see that this is (quite predictably) exactly what has happened. If you apply the same rule to anyone (ie target their homeland), you will get the same entirely predictable result. This is all by-the-by and a pretty obvious corollary. My central point is that the notion that some group has a persistent and special moral duty to hand over its territorial inheritance to people other than their children, is genocidal Yes, so what. Would it bother you if the next generation of Indians were a shade lighter? Would it bother them? Would Indians still be Indians if over 6 or 7 generations they had a growing number of Americans living among them. All your arguments hinge on the idea that any dilution of white British is a bad thing unwelcome to the British people. I disagree, I don't think many people care. I think they care about too many new migrants but not what colour their neighbour is. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 29, 2023 19:08:00 GMT
It seems to me something is blocking basic reasoning here. If an asset is shared by more people, each person has (in aggregation) less. Not in this case because nobody was ever entitled to inherit every single square inch of the British isles. It's not like having another sibling and losing a chunk of your inheritance. It's clear i'm not talking about anyone in particular owning the whole of the UK.The people of the UK share its territory as an inheritance from their forebears. If you similar entitle large numbers of extra people, the number of people holding such is larger, making each share smaller. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 29, 2023 19:11:07 GMT
As long as persons of migration background are allowed to own real property in England the amount of territory available to the indigenous population as their collective inheritance is reduced accordingly. Many countries, including several of those which have contributed most to the incoming migrant stream in the last sixty years, have laws in effect to restrict or even disallow such ownership. India being a very prominent example. Collective inheritance. Hahahahaha. Where do I go to claim my collective inheritance. |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Nov 29, 2023 19:18:38 GMT
The Royal family are doing pretty well out of their bit of the "collective inheritance".
And I'm pretty sure they didn't even pay for quite a lot of it, back in the day.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 29, 2023 19:21:01 GMT
You managed to ignore the point nicely. I will try again. For over 60 years almost every single party that stood for election had as intended policy that they put to the electorate that immigration control and limitation of immigrants was a particular policy they would follow. The electorate voted for those policies in overwhelming numbers because it was frequently the policy of the losing party as well. That policy was worded in many different ways but amounted to the same thing.Time and again teh majority have been ignored as regards their express wishes. Equality laws may be designed to prevent discrimination but they have the added effect of creating division and actively discriminating against the white population. Whether that effect is deliberate, opportune or unintended is open to debate. Aggressive anti-immigration policies have been the hallmark of most UK manifestoes for 60 years. It is found that the laws favour children of immigrant extraction and that is one factor that is exacerbating the division that the laws created in the first instance. Being a child of immigrant parents should in democratic theory entitle you to the same rights as everyone else, but it does not, it entitles you to rights in law greater than the white majority and the children of that majority. "You managed to ignore the point nicely. I will try again. For over 60 years almost every single party that stood for election had as intended policy that they put to the electorate that immigration control and limitation of immigrants was a particular policy they would follow." Governments have failed to deliver countless promises, voting for parties that pledge to reduce immigration is not evidence of hostility towards British citizens of immigrant extraction. "Aggressive anti-immigration policies have been the hallmark of most UK manifestoes for 60 years" Pledging to reduce immigration isn't aggressive anti-immigration policy. No successful political party has pledged to stop immigration entirely or failed to talk about the positives of controlled immigration. "Equality laws may be designed to prevent discrimination but they have the added effect of creating division and actively discriminating against the white population." They were brought in to counter divisive racism against ethnic minorities, where's your proof they actively discriminate against the white population? "Being a child of immigrant parents should in democratic theory entitle you to the same rights as everyone else, but it does not, it entitles you to rights in law greater than the white majority and the children of that majority" Bullshit. Name me the legal rights I have that you don't. Voting for what is in a manifesto is kind of an indication of what the electorate wish to happen. If that manifesto says "we will bring in only those we need and end chain migration" or if it says " we will reduce net migration to tens of thousands" these are statements that the electorate get to vote for. They say nothing about who is here already at that time but then those two manifesto promises are about 20 and 12 years old respectively. In such ways are the seeds of anger and division sown. Positive action actively discriminates against the white population as do the programmes to increase diversity. Even more so since the proportions are changing. The Equality duty in all public bodies is also discriminatory. Assuming your ethnic grouping is not white British then your rights are based on being an active ethnic minority with preference considered due to the Equality duty, the diversity programme and positive action. As an example many companies have overall a lower proportion of ethnic minorities that currently exists in the UK. This is in part due to many employees being taken on when the proportions were much lower possible ten twenty years ago so the current intake has to be skewed to a higher proportion than currently exists to make up the shortfall. You will be selected for training programmes because you are an ethnic minority and be the recipient of the 'equally qualified' selection process which is largely just an allowance to take on ethnic minorities as needed. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 29, 2023 19:22:57 GMT
As long as persons of migration background are allowed to own real property in England the amount of territory available to the indigenous population as their collective inheritance is reduced accordingly. Many countries, including several of those which have contributed most to the incoming migrant stream in the last sixty years, have laws in effect to restrict or even disallow such ownership. India being a very prominent example. Collective inheritance. Hahahahaha. Where do I go to claim my collective inheritance. This from the man who feels we need to pave over the greenbelt - to 'provide for those who are here'. Just a moment's honest thought would give you an answer. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 29, 2023 19:30:08 GMT
As long as persons of migration background are allowed to own real property in England the amount of territory available to the indigenous population as their collective inheritance is reduced accordingly. Many countries, including several of those which have contributed most to the incoming migrant stream in the last sixty years, have laws in effect to restrict or even disallow such ownership. India being a very prominent example. Collective inheritance. Hahahahaha. Where do I go to claim my collective inheritance. Your collective inheritance is in the rights you enjoy as a UK citizen, the right to be part of framing a democratic path for your country and the expectation as a British Citizen that the same stability and rights will be inherited by your issue without being modified or changed without your express collective democratic decision. |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Nov 29, 2023 19:37:01 GMT
..the expectation as a British Citizen that the same stability and rights will be inherited by your issue without being modified or changed without your express collective democratic decision. In other words: "I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms." UK Citizenship Pledge. So no problem, then - that's exactly what new British citizens sign up to. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 29, 2023 19:44:41 GMT
..the expectation as a British Citizen that the same stability and rights will be inherited by your issue without being modified or changed without your express collective democratic decision. In other words: "I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms." UK Citizenship Pledge. So no problem, then - that's exactly what new British citizens sign up to. I think you missed quite a lot, it is the enforced sharing of those rights to outsiders in extremely large numbers that is the problem and that enforced sharing with large numbers was against specifically what the electorate expressed as their wishes over the last 60 years. |
|
