Post: #26

I'm taking a pass on this thread, hahaha.

Don't do it, Timmy! Hahaha!

Post: #27

I'm surprised to see that the @indianracetroll has not reacted on this yet!

Besides, yes, eastern europeans have a rather bad stance in the UK (own experience).

Post: #28

What UKIP have very cleverly done is to address a huge and very serious issue in the UK over the last 18 years that desperately needs to be addressed ( excessive uncontrolled immigration) and done it in a very intelligent ( I.e. Non racist) manner.

That is why all the establishment parties and media are doing their very best to smear and undermine Nigel and UKIP. Good luck to them on 7th May!

Post: #29

Poland has one of the lowest birthrates in the world.

All the youth leaves for different countries, and the young females that stay are more career minded now due to Western influences.

What does this mean for the future of the Polish population? How will countries like Poland and Sweden survive if they don't change their mindset?

On top of more immigration than ever before, it's as if everything Europe has fought for the last few thousands of years is for nought.

Post: #30

delete

Post: #31

Anyone who believes what any media outlet portrays about UKIP should think about what the media is trying to create from it.

UKIP says the sky is blue, the media will claim they said Poles are making our dole queues longer.

Post: #32

(04-22-2015 04:27 PM)Saga Wrote:  Interestingly if you watch the interview you'll see he didn't actually say that. He said that personally he thinks immigrants from countries with more shared history and institutions with the UK are more likely to integrate well, and then he said (and this was omitted from the Guardian article) that in terms of policy it's irrelevant because he wants a skill-based points system which doesn't take nationality into account whatsoever.

Why the Guardian decided to blatantly misrepresent that statement shouldn't be much of a mystery to anyone. I thought the US media was bad, but the nonstop slime thrown at UKIP by the UK media over the past few weeks has been utterly astounding. I suppose that's what you can expect if you publicly question the dogma of multiculturalism.

Saga, thanks for this perspective.

Post: #33

(04-22-2015 07:43 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  This thread isn’t about race, it’s about culture, fitting in and success. Indians have been living in the UK for a long time now and are very successful. That’s probably why Farage wants them. They’re part of the British fabric now.

There’s a saying “Indians can succeed everywhere except India”. Indians tend to do well no matter where they end up in the world, as do the Chinese.

(04-22-2015 04:39 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  Undoubtedly there are. But they form a tiny, tiny minority of India's 1bn+ population. We've all seen the youtube videos and the economic statistics, and it's pretty obvious that aside from once having been colonized by the UK, India has little in common with fully modern nations like Australia and Canada. Just ask yourself where a Briton will feel more at ease: a third tier Eastern European city or a Calcutta slum?

The Briton isn’t moving to India – the Indian is moving to UK. A Calcutta slum kid won’t make it out of Calcutta, let alone all the way to the UK.

(04-22-2015 06:56 PM)floor7 Wrote:  Tory outreach to affluent south Asians has been huge. The republicans fail so much in the US with that demographic in comparison. And I would say the indian-american community is richer than the british-indian community so it isn't an economics thing.

True, I'm a British-Indian and I've got some rich relatives in the UK, but my Indian-American relatives are way richer on average. The Republicans tend to appeal towards a more evangelical Christian base, and this is a big turn off for most Indian-Americans, who tend to be Hindu or Sikh.

(04-22-2015 07:01 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  My stance is that Eastern Europe is the better source. In order to support my point, I provided several arguments as to why India, despite having been part of the former British empire, is very different from other former members of said empire like Canada and Australia.

There is no relationship between what’s going on in India with how Indians do outside of India. It’s not possible to accurately compare a billion people in India with 30 million in the Indian diaspora. For all countries, the people who emigrate are not representative of the people from the host country – e.g. Chinese women in China are way hotter than Chinese-Americans.

My extended family is from shithole villages in India. They’re all doing pretty well now and some are millionaires. The Indians who live in the US tend to come on H1-B professional visa and are even richer than the ones in UK.

Everybody has to come from somewhere.

Yeah man, I agree with all that. I'm not trying to say that Indians make "bad" immigrants. It's a highly contextual topic, in which we're discussing what is the best source of immigration to the UK, specifically.

My stance is that for the long term, eastern Europeans are after all part of the whole "Judeo-Christian European" civilization. That doesn't make them any better or worse than Indians or any other group that isn't part of that civilization. But, in the context of the UK, the fact that Eastern Euros belong to that same cultural and ethnic paradigm has to be considered a plus in their favor.

Indians have their own ancient, deeply engrained culture that is very different from European culture. And they look different from Europeans. In a century (hell, far earlier) any Poles or Slovaks or whatever that settle in the UK will be indistinguishable from the native population. It's basically like mixing water with lemon flavored water. The resulting mixture will be homogenized and not that different from the original drink.

Indians on the other hand, no matter how successful or well integrated they become, will continue to form a population within a population. Like oil mixing with water. Whenever you have more than one distinct group of people occupying the same territory, there is bound to be friction over one thing or another. Indians will always bitch that they're not being 100% accepted into the wider society and the native Brits will moan about how 90% of medical school spots go to Indians. And on and on. It's inevitable. These kinds of problems would not arise with an Eastern European immigrant population that dissolves completely into the host society within a generation or two at most.

Now, if you were to ask me who makes better immigrants to Singapore, or to Madagascar? I'd probably say Indians. It's all context dependent, and I don't think it's any insult to Indians to say that people from one part of Europe make better immigrants to another part of Europe than do people from outside of Europe.

Post: #34

(04-23-2015 06:07 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 07:43 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  This thread isn’t about race, it’s about culture, fitting in and success. Indians have been living in the UK for a long time now and are very successful. That’s probably why Farage wants them. They’re part of the British fabric now.

There’s a saying “Indians can succeed everywhere except India”. Indians tend to do well no matter where they end up in the world, as do the Chinese.

(04-22-2015 04:39 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  Undoubtedly there are. But they form a tiny, tiny minority of India's 1bn+ population. We've all seen the youtube videos and the economic statistics, and it's pretty obvious that aside from once having been colonized by the UK, India has little in common with fully modern nations like Australia and Canada. Just ask yourself where a Briton will feel more at ease: a third tier Eastern European city or a Calcutta slum?

The Briton isn’t moving to India – the Indian is moving to UK. A Calcutta slum kid won’t make it out of Calcutta, let alone all the way to the UK.

(04-22-2015 06:56 PM)floor7 Wrote:  Tory outreach to affluent south Asians has been huge. The republicans fail so much in the US with that demographic in comparison. And I would say the indian-american community is richer than the british-indian community so it isn't an economics thing.

True, I'm a British-Indian and I've got some rich relatives in the UK, but my Indian-American relatives are way richer on average. The Republicans tend to appeal towards a more evangelical Christian base, and this is a big turn off for most Indian-Americans, who tend to be Hindu or Sikh.

(04-22-2015 07:01 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  My stance is that Eastern Europe is the better source. In order to support my point, I provided several arguments as to why India, despite having been part of the former British empire, is very different from other former members of said empire like Canada and Australia.

There is no relationship between what’s going on in India with how Indians do outside of India. It’s not possible to accurately compare a billion people in India with 30 million in the Indian diaspora. For all countries, the people who emigrate are not representative of the people from the host country – e.g. Chinese women in China are way hotter than Chinese-Americans.

My extended family is from shithole villages in India. They’re all doing pretty well now and some are millionaires. The Indians who live in the US tend to come on H1-B professional visa and are even richer than the ones in UK.

Everybody has to come from somewhere.

Yeah man, I agree with all that. I'm not trying to say that Indians make "bad" immigrants. It's a highly contextual topic, in which we're discussing what is the best source of immigration to the UK, specifically.

My stance is that for the long term, eastern Europeans are after all part of the whole "Judeo-Christian European" civilization. That doesn't make them any better or worse than Indians or any other group that isn't part of that civilization. But, in the context of the UK, the fact that Eastern Euros belong to that same cultural and ethnic paradigm has to be considered a plus in their favor.

Indians have their own ancient, deeply engrained culture that is very different from European culture. And they look different from Europeans. In a century (hell, far earlier) any Poles or Slovaks or whatever that settle in the UK will be indistinguishable from the native population. It's basically like mixing water with lemon flavored water. The resulting mixture will be homogenized and not that different from the original drink.

Indians on the other hand, no matter how successful or well integrated they become, will continue to form a population within a population. Like oil mixing with water. Whenever you have more than one distinct group of people occupying the same territory, there is bound to be friction over one thing or another. Indians will always bitch that they're not being 100% accepted into the wider society and the native Brits will moan about how 90% of medical school spots go to Indians. And on and on. It's inevitable. These kinds of problems would not arise with an Eastern European immigrant population that dissolves completely into the host society within a generation or two at most.

Now, if you were to ask me who makes better immigrants to Singapore, or to Madagascar? I'd probably say Indians. It's all context dependent, and I don't think it's any insult to Indians to say that people from one part of Europe make better immigrants to another part of Europe than do people from outside of Europe.

You aren't British, are you?

Post: #35

(04-23-2015 06:07 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  Yeah man, I agree with all that. I'm not trying to say that Indians make "bad" immigrants. It's a highly contextual topic, in which we're discussing what is the best source of immigration to the UK, specifically.

My stance is that for the long term, eastern Europeans are after all part of the whole "Judeo-Christian European" civilization. That doesn't make them any better or worse than Indians or any other group that isn't part of that civilization. But, in the context of the UK, the fact that Eastern Euros belong to that same cultural and ethnic paradigm has to be considered a plus in their favor.

British people don’t identify with Europeans very much. The average British born and raised person doesn’t consider of any race doesn’t consider himself a “European”. To then “Europe” is the land on the other side of the English channel. The British identify more with the Anglosphere countries than mainland Europe. Just because somebody has the same skin tone doesn’t necessarily mean that they will assimilate better than other races. Japanese-Americans are very integrated into mainstream US culture.

Europeans don’t see themselves as the same race either – they seem themselves, as French, Italian, German etc. Grouping all of these multiple ethnicities together and calling them “White” is an American thing. Italians were not considered “white” when they first started coming to the US in big numbers 100 years ago.

Just 20 years ago neighbours of the same colour were killing each other eastern Europe, like Yugoslavia with Serbians vs Croats vs Bosnians.

(04-23-2015 06:07 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  Indians have their own ancient, deeply engrained culture that is very different from European culture. And they look different from Europeans. In a century (hell, far earlier) any Poles or Slovaks or whatever that settle in the UK will be indistinguishable from the native population. It's basically like mixing water with lemon flavored water. The resulting mixture will be homogenized and not that different from the original drink.

So acceptance comes down to skin colour? One of my brother’s closest friends is a white Serbian guy who came to UK aged 12. When he arrived he was getting shit from the white British kids about his accent and he ended up hanging out with Indian kids. I didn’t see much European solidarity there.

(04-23-2015 06:07 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  Indians on the other hand, no matter how successful or well integrated they become, will continue to form a population within a population. Like oil mixing with water. Whenever you have more than one distinct group of people occupying the same territory, there is bound to be friction over one thing or another. Indians will always bitch that they're not being 100% accepted into the wider society and the native Brits will moan about how 90% of medical school spots go to Indians. And on and on. It's inevitable. These kinds of problems would not arise with an Eastern European immigrant population that dissolves completely into the host society within a generation or two at most.

I’ve never heard anybody bitch about being accepted into the wider society or medical school.

Immigrants (unless they are from a hyper religious/and or exclusionary culture e.g. Ultra-orthodox Jews, fundamentalist Muslims, the Amish) become more assimilated into host populations into time. I have nephews and who can barely speak Punjabi, where both sets of parents were born and raised in UK. Their future kids will probably only speak English.

(04-23-2015 06:07 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  Now, if you were to ask me who makes better immigrants to Singapore, or to Madagascar? I'd probably say Indians. It's all context dependent, and I don't think it's any insult to Indians to say that people from one part of Europe make better immigrants to another part of Europe than do people from outside of Europe.

How does an Indian fit in to Madagascar better than UK?

Post: #36

(04-23-2015 09:06 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  ....

How does an Indian fit in to Madagascar better than UK?

I didn't say that. I said that while I think there are some countries, like the UK, for which eastern European immigrants are a better fit than Indians, there are other countries, like Singapore and Madagascar to give random examples, for which Indian immigrants are probably a better fit than E. European immigrants.

Anyway, listen man, I think we've both presented our stances on this issue, on a high level. Playing rhetorical pong with ever longer walls of text isn't going to add much value at this point. We're just going to have to agree to disagree over the extent to which shared cultural and ethnic identity matters in selecting immigrants who are a "good fit."

Peace.

Post: #37

Indians fit in pretty fucking well here. It's just ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

Pakistanis and Bangladieshi's on the other hand...

Post: #38

Question: is it the case that EE immigrants don't fit in well in the UK? It seems to be implied by the guy they're quoting. I really don't know; I am american and the only EE person I'm close to is a first Generation-Polish American, but he's about as American as it gets.

Post: #39

They do fit in yeah.

The gripe is more economical; they're basically better at just about every entry level job than our lazy useless natives.




They have brought a fair amount of crime with them too and also exploit our benefits systems to the max (which is entirely our own fault for being so lax on our own people).

Post: #40

I think the Indians integrate more completely than the Eastern Euros.

The Indians have family roots and businesses in the UK. They already have a tradition of immigration to the UK.

The Eastern Euros are very different. Many don't bother to speak English. They are all very insular.

They are hard workers, no doubt about that, but that aspect of them is actually detrimental to the UK in some ways, as many of them are taking most of the money they earn back home.

The most noticeable difference is the attitude towards the natives. Indians on the whole are incredibly polite and make their gratitude known. Eastern Europeans in the UK are often very rude, or will completely ignore natives as if they are above having anything to do with them. There are exceptions but they are few.

Post: #41

(04-23-2015 11:18 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:06 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  ....

How does an Indian fit in to Madagascar better than UK?

I didn't say that. I said that while I think there are some countries, like the UK, for which eastern European immigrants are a better fit than Indians, there are other countries, like Singapore and Madagascar to give random examples, for which Indian immigrants are probably a better fit than E. European immigrants.

Anyway, listen man, I think we've both presented our stances on this issue, on a high level. Playing rhetorical pong with ever longer walls of text isn't going to add much value at this point. We're just going to have to agree to disagree over the extent to which shared cultural and ethnic identity matters in selecting immigrants who are a "good fit."

Peace.

If you have ever lived in or visited the UK for a long time you will realize that this concept of 'pan-white' or 'judeo-christian' (which are really American rhertorical concepts) is not nearly the same in the UK. WalterBlack has it nailed on.

And that's where your argument fails. You are ascribing a pretty American standard and view to a native British person just because they happen to look 'white' in the American sense. A british person on the other hand does not really feel such racial/ethnic 'kinship' with an EE.

EE's in the UK are looked upon the same as many Hispanics/Mexicans are in the US.

Indian people integrate better into british society than EE's and they are of higher economic standing.

I think your initial point, if taken in a vacuum, is a valid hypothesis but it fails when applied in this particular case and the empirics tease that out.

Post: #42

(04-23-2015 03:06 AM)Benoit Wrote:  Farage has to do better on immigration policy if he wants my vote.

UNLIMITED immigration for slim, attractive, single women.
- A panel of men will assess their photos, which will be as tightly regulated as passports, no duckface or myspace angles to hide fatness.
- BMI limits apply, with regular health checks providing advice on nutrition and portion control for those who slip.

Completely agree. In this new era of full blown feminism, lets flip the immigration issue. Lets ban all male immigration and just hand out free visas to hot women. Lets just make it one huge taco fest.

Because Taco fest >>>> Saussage fest. It solves two issues at once. First of all the insatiable feminists and other groups are happy. They get more of their kind. Secondly, most importantly its going to swing the ratios in favor of dong owners.

As to the "hotness" factor lets ditch the BMI thing and check them for herpes...I mean what worthile hotgirl is std free.To top it off, we say no marrying the locals. You can screw around all you want but, no you cant marry anyone.

Post: #43

(04-23-2015 11:36 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  They do fit in yeah.

The gripe is more economical; they're basically better at just about every entry level job than our lazy useless natives.




They have brought a fair amount of crime with them too and also exploit our benefits systems to the max (which is entirely our own fault for being so lax on our own people).

Essentially since Thatcher, those who were dynamic and innovative in the business or work world in general. Either got themselves established in high positions or became 'international'. They are still around, but a lot of the British population broke off and got weaker, mentally, emotionally and physically. Which you can see with our obesity rates and what passes as television by popular demand. `

Eastern Europeans have a different mentality altogether. They are mostly economically minded and don't take on that weak mentality which we have in the U.K. They see how things are and say them on the most part. However you are starting to see changes to EE university students who are starting to enter the professional world either in London or any other financial hub.

Post: #44

(04-24-2015 03:56 AM)gusfring Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 03:06 AM)Benoit Wrote:  Farage has to do better on immigration policy if he wants my vote.

UNLIMITED immigration for slim, attractive, single women.
- A panel of men will assess their photos, which will be as tightly regulated as passports, no duckface or myspace angles to hide fatness.
- BMI limits apply, with regular health checks providing advice on nutrition and portion control for those who slip.

Completely agree. In this new era of full blown feminism, lets flip the immigration issue. Lets ban all male immigration and just hand out free visas to hot women. Lets just make it one huge taco fest.

Because Taco fest >>>> Saussage fest. It solves two issues at once. First of all the insatiable feminists and other groups are happy. They get more of their kind. Secondly, most importantly its going to swing the ratios in favor of dong owners.

As to the "hotness" factor lets ditch the BMI thing and check them for herpes...I mean what worthile hotgirl is std free.To top it off, we say no marrying the locals. You can screw around all you want but, no you cant marry anyone.

Yeah but we all know that feminism is essentially a sexual trade union for ugly women. These types hate competition, especially from attractive girls who are nice people.

Post: #45

(04-24-2015 01:52 AM)floor7 Wrote:  If you have ever lived in or visited the UK for a long time you will realize that this concept of 'pan-white' or 'judeo-christian' (which are really American rhertorical concepts) is not nearly the same in the UK. WalterBlack has it nailed on.

And that's where your argument fails. You are ascribing a pretty American standard and view to a native British person just because they happen to look 'white' in the American sense. A british person on the other hand does not really feel such racial/ethnic 'kinship' with an EE.

EE's in the UK are looked upon the same as many Hispanics/Mexicans are in the US.

Indian people integrate better into british society than EE's and they are of higher economic standing.

I think your initial point, if taken in a vacuum, is a valid hypothesis but it fails when applied in this particular case and the empirics tease that out.

Haha, I had told myself that I said what I wanted to say and would not be further commenting in this thread, but it seems my arguments are being misinterpreted in a fundamental way, so it's worth it to throw in this last comment to clear it up.

So here is the thing: we're discussing who are better immigrants to the UK, not who British people think are the better immigrants. I know they drive on the wrong side of the road over there, but 2+2 still equals 4, even in the UK. For all I care, Brits could say they prefer evil brain eating blood-sucking worms from Alpha Centauri over eastern Europeans, and it would make no difference to me. I'd laugh and say "nah, Eastern Europeans will be better for you guys than blood sucking worms from Alpha Centauri. Just take my word for it."

Whether British people subscribe to the notion of a "Western Civilization"or a "Judeo-Christian-tradition" or even a "white people" category is completely irrelevant. There exist blank-slatists but there exists no blank-slate. The entirety of recorded history tells us that there will be friction whenever you have people who have different cultures and appearances occupying the same territory. That's just a fact, and its factuality is completely independent of how British people feel about it. I don't like gravity keeping me down but that doesn't mean it's not there, and all that.

Anyway, that's my argument. It may or may not be correct, but the point is that it's completely agnostic of any British idiosyncracies of looking at the world. If the prevailing wisdom in Britain held that Islamic fanatics from Boko Haram are the best immigrants, would that make it so? Of course not. Objective reality is ascertained by examining empirical evidence, not people's (often ludicrous) beliefs or fancies.

[Edit, and completely off topic from the rest of this post, but when I say "Eastern Europeans" I obviously exclude Gypsies from that group. Yes, they currently dwell mainly in eastern Europe, but it would be rather perfidious to use them as a weapon against Eastern Europeans. Especially in the context of this thread, which is basically discussing the merits of Indians vs Eastern Europeans as immigrants. As we all know, the gypsies, or "Roma," are Indians who emigrated to Europe over a thousand years ago and even after more than a millennium are still not integrated and are a scourge to their host societies. I'm not saying the gypsies should be used as an argument against Indian immigrants, but it would likewise be rather strange to have them weigh against Eastern Europeans. ]

Post: #46

(04-24-2015 11:36 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  Anyway, that's my argument. It may or may not be correct, but the point is that it's completely agnostic of any British idiosyncracies of looking at the world. If the prevailing wisdom in Britain held that Islamic fanatics from Boko Haram are the best immigrants, would that make it so? Of course not. Objective reality is ascertained by examining empirical evidence, not people's (often ludicrous) beliefs or fancies.

Honestly I vowed to not comment on that thread since it's a potential powder keg, but I will try to keep it civil and also remind that spiritually I see everyone identical.

Still in terms of cultures and civilizations there are differences.

1. Indians emigrating to Europe / turban wearing Sikh included are of higher education and they do exceedingly well - if they intermarry, then they integrate excellently also. If they don't intermarry with the local population, then many do create a society within a society. I dated an Indian girl in the UK some years ago and met a few guys. Also plenty of people of my kind of spiritual movement in the UK are Indians - cool people too. (Also 2 acquaintances of mine are Indian Alphas - one living in Hungary and another model-looks in Austria. The model guy has a blonde mother as his father became wealthy and got himself a blonde bombshell - heh. The Hungarian Indian Alpha is fucking 20-somethings in Budapest while being 44.)

2. EE is not some kind of monolithic bloc. You simply cannot compare Romanian gypsies to Polish call-center workers or construction engineers. Granted - plenty of low-level Polish people went to the UK & Ireland, but also quite a few highly educated specialists - I would estimate it personally to be 50-50. 50% low-brow vs. 50% medium to high brow. Regardless of the percentages practically 100% of those will be full British in the second generation - you will not even see a difference to the local people - sometimes you don't even see one in the first generation. I doubt that this can be said the same for Indian immigrants - all this despite the fact that Indians in the UK do certainly much better financially than the average EE.

So integration is truly a matter of definition.

That said you certainly have different problems with some Romanian, Albanian, Pakistani, Somali immigrants. Not all are created equal and integrate similarly.

African Christians, Persians (yes - despite many being Muslims those that emigrate are often long way off from their Arab brothers), Jewish, most EE - from the Baltics down to Serbia - all of them integrate exceedingly well (Romania & Albania are special cases and usually they cause the most difficulties). We know it from the experiences in Germany, Sweden, Austria where many came to those countries in the 1980s to 1990s.

Frankly I find the comments by Nigel Farage - if he said something like that at all - completely counter-productive. Of course if a country was more sane and prosperous, then it could and should select it's immigrants more consciously taking a closer look at nationalities which have been proven to be problematic for lack of a better word.

Simply put - you select and pick and choose what nationalities you prefer, if monetary policy was highly expansive (and best interest free), everyone was getting wealthy, then there would be little reason as to not invite more people in who have been proven to be somewhat positive to a country.

But that is simply not happening - immigration is a weapon and UKIP won't change much - even if they come to power which they probably won't.

So essentially for us debating what nationality or race is "better for Britain" is superfluous - at current economic climates probably none is. Otherwise you simply have to take a look, read some news, compare your own experiences in life and then you see who you prefer to live with.

And despite our different nationalities and races here I can virtually guarantee you that we all meeting on the street would instantly recognize a kindred soul going along perfectly well with each other - regardless of race, religion, heritage.

I personally have friends from Norway, Germany, Austria, USA, Afghanistan, Israel, Persia (Iran), Iraq, UK, Singapore etc. I recognize a good person I want to associate with pretty fast. But I also recognize an asshole / someone way too different from me. Unfortunately clever assholes are ruling almost all countries, so that's why we can discuss forever those topics which are served to us only to separate us. All of this won't change much.

I hope this doesn't get me banned. I am writing here almost like a New Age version of the United Nations. If I cannot write it like that then we need to close such threads instantly.

Post: #47

(04-24-2015 11:36 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  Haha, I had told myself that I said what I wanted to say and would not be further commenting in this thread, but it seems my arguments are being misinterpreted in a fundamental way, so it's worth it to throw in this last comment to clear it up.

So here is the thing: we're discussing who are better immigrants to the UK, not who British people think are the better immigrants. I know they drive on the wrong side of the road over there, but 2+2 still equals 4, even in the UK. For all I care, Brits could say they prefer evil brain eating blood-sucking worms from Alpha Centauri over eastern Europeans, and it would make no difference to me. I'd laugh and say "nah, Eastern Europeans will be better for you guys than blood sucking worms from Alpha Centauri. Just take my word for it."

So British people don’t know what’s best for their country? I was born and raised in UK, my close family is all there and I go there annually. I think I should be allowed to comment on this...

(04-24-2015 11:36 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  Whether British people subscribe to the notion of a "Western Civilization"or a "Judeo-Christian-tradition" or even a "white people" category is completely irrelevant. There exist blank-slatists but there exists no blank-slate. The entirety of recorded history tells us that there will be friction whenever you have people who have different cultures and appearances occupying the same territory. That's just a fact, and its factuality is completely independent of how British people feel about it. I don't like gravity keeping me down but that doesn't mean it's not there, and all that.

Anyway, that's my argument. It may or may not be correct, but the point is that it's completely agnostic of any British idiosyncracies of looking at the world. If the prevailing wisdom in Britain held that Islamic fanatics from Boko Haram are the best immigrants, would that make it so? Of course not. Objective reality is ascertained by examining empirical evidence, not people's (often ludicrous) beliefs or fancies.

UK Indians have been living in UK in large numbers for 50 years now, and they:

• Have almost zero ethnic tension with the white population
• Don’t make their religions an issue with anybody
• Are very entrepreneurial
• Are highly educated
• Have above average income
• Have very low unemployment rate
• Have very low percentage on welfare
• Have a high marriage rate, and low level of divorce
• Have a very low percentage of single mothers.
• Very low percentage of illegitimate kids. Most kids are born to married parents.
• Have very strong family values
• Have a very low level of criminality
• Have a very low percentage of prison population
• Have a very low level of drug abuse issues
  

Is that not good enough for an immigrant group? Is 50 years of evidence not good enough?

(04-24-2015 12:05 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  African Christians, Persians (yes - despite many being Muslims those that emigrate are often long way off from their Arab brothers), Jewish, most EE - from the Baltics down to Serbia - all of them integrate exceedingly well

My list above could apply to these groups too.

Post: #48

(04-24-2015 12:35 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 12:05 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  African Christians, Persians (yes - despite many being Muslims those that emigrate are often long way off from their Arab brothers), Jewish, most EE - from the Baltics down to Serbia - all of them integrate exceedingly well

My list above could apply to these groups too.

I agree. Indians currently living and moving to Britain are integrating exceedingly well and can be certainly in that list. And some from EE certainly don't and Nigel Farage is correct if he meant that.

Post: #49

@WalterBlack

As I've said multiple times in the past, I am in complete agreement with you that Indians make great immigrants from an economic perspective. Not disputing that whatsoever.

What it their % of the UK population now? It's about 3% right? What happens when they become a significant minority, on the order of 25% or so? Will they be content to passively exist as individuals who happen to be of Indian ancestry, or will they feel like it's in their best interest to represent themselves as an "Indian community" within the larger UK society? Indians are no dummies, and at any rate, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there is strength in numbers and organization.

I'm no prophet, but it seems like it's at least reasonable to suppose that in the future as the Indian community grows larger, it will increasingly start to assert itself politically and begin to define its interests as those of the "Indian community". We have seen this over and over again in multicultural societies, whether it is advanced nations like the US where this merely results in sickening racial politics, or in extreme cases, like Rwanda or Serbia where it results in actual violent strife.

The above scenario is again very different from what would happen with E. European immigration. Eastern Europeans will completely melt into the larger UK society. It's ludicrous to consider a political movement arising 50 years from now among a "my grandparents came from Poland" community.

Quote:So British people don’t know what’s best for their country?

How about Swedes and Sweden?

Post: #50

(04-24-2015 01:02 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  What it their % of the UK population now? It's about 3% right? What happens when they become a significant minority, on the order of 25% or so? Will they be content to passively exist as individuals who happen to be of Indian ancestry, or will they feel like it's in their best interest to represent themselves as an "Indian community" within the larger UK society? Indians are no dummies, and at any rate, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there is strength in numbers and organization.

I'm no prophet, but it seems like it's at least reasonable to suppose that in the future as the Indian community grows larger, it will increasingly start to assert itself politically and begin to define its interests as those of the "Indian community". We have seen this over and over again in multicultural societies, whether it is advanced nations like the US where this merely results in sickening racial politics, or in extreme cases, like Rwanda or Serbia where it results in actual violent strife.

Racial tensions between whites and Indians are in the past, There was a period of low level violence in the 1960s and 70s started by extreme right wing parties but that stopped a long time ago.

There’s almost zero no chance of the whole of UK becoming 25% Indian. There’s pockets of the UK which do have a high percentage of Indians and those areas are doing very well, such as Wembley and Southall.

Immigrants get assimilated over time and there is more intermarriage over the generations. The fastest growing ethnicity is mixed kids.

Quote:The 2011 census revealed a country that is decreasingly white and British: England’s ethnic-minority population grew from 9% of the total in 2001 to 14%. But the biggest single increase was in the number of people claiming a mixed-ethnic background. This almost doubled, to around 1.2m. Among children under the age of five, 6% had a mixed background—more than belonged to any other minority group ... Mixed-race children are now about as common in Britain as in America—a country with many more non-whites and a longer history of mass immigration.

Quote:Indians, who began arriving in large numbers in the 1960s, were slower to mix. They are now doing so—but along Jewish, rather than Irish, lines. For them, assimilation follows education: according to research by Raya Muttarak and Anthony Heath, Indians with degrees are far more likely to marry whites. Indians are not so much marrying into the white majority as into its suburban middle class, says Shamit Saggar at the University of Essex.

Their children are quietly transforming Britain’s suburbs and commuter towns. Whereas Asians are still concentrated in cities such as Leicester and in London boroughs like Tower Hamlets and Harrow, mixed Asian and white children are widespread (see maps). In Chiltern, an affluent commuter district in Buckinghamshire, 5% of children under five years old were mixed Asian and white in 2011—more than in most of London. Their parents may have met at university or while working in the capital. Within Birmingham, too, mixed Asian and white children are especially common in the largely middle-class white suburbs of Edgbaston, Moseley and Harborne.

The UK is more concerned with class than race. In UK Asian means Indian/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis. As you can see from the map, their kids are becoming more mixed.

Quote:Britain’s newer minorities are blending into the larger population, too, but in ways that defy easy categorisation. Mixed black- African and white children are particularly common in working-class suburbs and commuter towns such as Croydon and Southend-on-Sea, possibly because black Africans are rarely tied to city centres through social-housing tenancies. They are also mixing with new immigrants from continental Europe. Most of the 21,000 children born to Polish mothers in 2012 had Polish fathers; but of the rest, 23% had African or Asian fathers.

Seems like a lot of the Eastern European women mix too.

(04-24-2015 01:02 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  How about Swedes and Sweden?

I’ve never lived in Sweden, I’m here to comment about UK. From what I can tell, Sweden has a smaller population, so cannot absorb immigrants on the scale of the UK. Also the immigrants to Sweden are mostly not Indian.