The reasons UKIP believe immigration should be cut down to begin with are racist reasons. You can't just pretend that they're "the least discriminatory party" without consider why they want what they want.
If all you want to do is lambast everything as racist then there's not going to be much talk is there? It's just going to be you going 'UKIP's racist,' others going 'no' and repeated ad nauseam.
Using the example of Australia, yet again. Are they racist?
Yes, they are. And as far as I know, they are masking that racism behind a rhetoric of being "anti-boat immigrantist".
Ha.
You are right. A better metafor would be someone constantly walking around with shit in their pants.
Do you have anything specific in mind against UKIP, other than shit and racism? Anything quantifiable?
I could ask the same of you, but it would be an equally pointless and redundant post as yours is, so I won't.
I've seen plenty of English libcon, most Indian asians and east asians I know are either con or UKIP. [Everyone agrees not to vote labour]. We really do live in different Europes. Not really surprising given just how progressive Sweden is though. Really strange from an outsider's perspective, probably as strange as it is for you looking into the UK.
1) Assuming you were in control of immigration, what qualifications would you have for who's allowed in and who's not? Important topics are things like education, economic class, race, ethnicity, country of origin, etc, but feel free to mention other things.
2) If you were in power, what steps would you take to dissuade bigotry in the workplace? In politics? Anywhere else? Also mention what types of bigotry (racism, sexism, etc)
3) Fast forward to the future. Because of advances in infrastructure making work vastly more efficient, only a tiny fraction of the populace is needed to work to support everyone's necessities. What economic system would you think is ideal? Would everyone still be forced to work?
1. Depends on what reason the person is seeking permanent residency for. Education and work experience for education and work. Must speak at the very least basic English.
2. Disallow discriminatory hiring in the workplace and what have you.
3. i. How will I know what works in the future? How do you know? As we stand now, already only a tiny fraction of the populace is needed to sustain us all and yet it is done as is. It'll probably stay being done as is, unless some paradigm shifting tech pops around. All in all I reckon the only thing that'll be different from now and the future is that everything'll be more efficient. Putin's fourth ideology is bonkers, just stick to liberalism; for all its flaws it works well enough for as long as power creep is stunted.
ii. If they look for wealth they must work for it. I'd wish to keep some sort of social welfare, kinda like benefits, but the strain put on by OAPs means the system will have to be changed to something more viable.
My perspective is from 'Merrica, where anti-immigration is 100% focused on racism.
It's the same in Europe. Or well, "ethnicism", since a lot of racists get all semantical about what racism is. Regardless, it's all about where people come from, and about letting certain peoples in and keeping others out. The more melanin you produce, the bigger chance of you being in the "Out" group, of course.
No, that's an American thing. Keep the whole obsession for white racism against black people and whatever over the pond, the majority of European immigrants are other Europeans and Asians, with few in the way of melanin differences in between. And yet somehow European countries can still find an abundance of people complaining about how European countries simply cannot cope with unrestricted immigration, even amongst immigrants themselves! But why wouldn't evil nazi europeans embrace additional european immigrants, if everything is 100% focused on racism?
Now, either UKIP are very stupid and do not know this, or they do know this and are ignoring it to exploit the unpleasant seam of xenophobia and racism that runs through our societies in a bid to gain votes.
Or they know things Oliver doesn't.
I also consider UKIP's policy on tighter immigration to be racist. http://oliverjamesopinion.wordpress.com/2014/03/09/5-facts-about-immigration-that-may-surprise-you/
1. UKIP seeks controlled immigration, not isolation. They would be unaffected, considering they actually economically benefit this country. Do you think most opponents of unrestricted immigration oppose it because of racism? Would you explain immigrants opposing it being the fault of racism against their own races?
2. Ok?
3 + 4. They also pay much less taxes, a net loss for our country.
Current research has repeatedly shown Sweden has gone plus, economically speaking, for every immigrant we've accepted. Even if there are people that gamble or abuse the system (and there sure as hell are a lot of Swedes doing that as well), the overall result is still economically beneficial.
"The question whether immigrants are net contributors to or a net drain on public finances is widely debated. Estimates suggest their impact is small, generally not exceeding 0.5% of GDP in either positive or negative terms. However, immigrants usually have a less favourable net fiscal position than the native-born, largely because they tend to pay less in taxes and social security contributions and not because of a higher dependence on social benefits.
Immigrants' age profile is an important factor in explaining cross-country differences in immigrant's fiscal position, and age at arrival is a key element in determining the net present value of immigrants' discounted future net direct fiscal contributions. Despite this, in most migration stems for the selection labour migrants, age plays a relatively minor role compared with other factors such work experience, language and education. More generally, differences in the composition of the migrant population by migration category (labour, family, humanitarian) account for a large part of the cross-country variation of migrants' fiscal position relative to that of the native-born.
Employment is the single most important determinant of migrant's net fiscal contribution, particularly in generous welfare states. Raising immigrants' employment rate to that of the native-born would entail substantial fiscal benefits for many European OECD economies."
http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/social-issues-migration-health/international-migration-outlook-2013_migr_outlook-2013-en#page161
Graph from page 161
tl;dr
Net loss for the UK and Sweden.
Germoney has it wurst.
Tip top destinations are Germany, France, UK, Italy and Spain in that order of magnitude.
5. There are many studies which also say the opposite, that during economic recession high immigration and unemployment of natives coincide. Furthermore, even amongst studies that conclude immigration has little effect on employment amongst previous residents, they note that wages also decrease for the lower class whilst increasing for the upper class due to immigration.
"The official research confirms that migration has had no impact on average wages but says that it has increased wages at the top of the wage scale but has lowered wage rates at the bottom." - Guardian news report, it's fairly left wing and so should be easy reading for all ITT.
The Nazi Scum chant was actually directed at the SDL fellows, according to newspaper articles on the event. I don't agree with the Swastika placard, that was unnecessary, but the chant was focussed on the SDL alone.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27339519http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/09/nigel-farage-confident-ukip-will-win-seat-in-scotland"As the Ukip members left the rally, the protesters booed and shouted "Racist scum off our streets" and "shame on you"."
Kek
Let's be honest - UKIP right now are acting like a lightbulb for ex-BNP, racist, misogynist and xenophobic moths. Even Farage himself has expressed his concern at how his party is being swamped with idiots.
...
It is. That's why the party doesn't have any misogynist policies at the top level (that I know of), there's just quite a lot of it. Here's one of UKIP's donors saying that women should wear trousers and women cannot be raped by their husbands.
...
The fact that they even need to [scour their members for former EDL/BNP] says more than enough about their membership. Maybe think a bit about why so many EDL and BNP members try to join.
It's not exactly hidden though is it? All the parties attract their fair share of morons, bigots and both, and with the fall of the BNP they're all going to go wherever.
Conservatives is racistTories confirmed pedosLib dems is racistEveryone is racistThere's fuck all unique about that. If you judge a party by its fuckknuckles, you're doing them a disservice.
Have you ever been to a political rally or protest? Have you ever been around political activists of any party?
I thought shouting was common etiquette at a protest. A quiet protest isn't a protest, it's a debate.
I remember that. I also remember this then this. You can't now honestly tell me that the racists and bigots that make up the bulk of UKIP's membership don't influence top-level policy.
The muslim refugees can flee elsewhere and bringing them ere brings the risk of bringing back extremism. Britain already has enough trouble stopping its own extremists fleeing to Syria for war, we don't need more. The Christian ones on the other hand are being killed, their tombs desecrated and are also being accused of collaborating with Assad. That's a calculated statement if I've ever seen one. I understand this viewpoint, though I disagree with it. Shouldn't be too hard to pick out extremists from refugees... Though then again, this is GCHQ's wet dream. Conflicted about this.
The bigotry within UKIP is unusually widespread.
No it's not.
Whoever Kaijyuu supports (presumably the Democrats in the USA) do not compare.
Yes they do. Heck, if you hold the same standard up where you assume any party member with power is wholly representative of the party, democrats are fucked with a history of people like senator Robert Byrde and shit like white niggers. Of course that would be unfair, and that is my point.
That's a silly thing to say. I don't believe in the whole "this is European politics, that is American politics, there are different standards therefore XYZ is subjective". Racism is racism no matter where it is; if my country thought that UKIP's policies weren't racist that just means my country is, unfortunately, quite racist.
No it's not, on both accounts. American and European politics are a world apart [literally and metaphorically speaking] as well as in racism. American racism is split between a white and black divide with a growing hispanic and black divide, whereas European racism varies from country to country and can usually trace its roots to who genocided who before and during WWII. Different beasts entirely.
I describe them as a baying mob intentionally because I can't help but feel pleasure at the idea that men like Farage would be driven from Scotland with a pack of hounds. If only we'd drive out Cameron and Miliband that way.
Good luck with getting red ed Milliband out of Edinburgh, or Glasgow. Surprised he's still kept labour afloat at this point.
But they're not. UKIP have never been able to hold a deposit in Scotland. The only reason why they've overtaken the Green Party by 1% in the polls in Scotland is because the BBC has been shamelessly reporting UKIP in Scottish political programs as much as they possibly can and giving them a platform while completely ignoring the Greens because it gets them viewers. Controversy exploitation.
In Scotland. Th4DwaRfY1 was probably talking about southerners. There's controversy in BBC controversies.
But that's not true. UKIP's flagship policy is leaving the EU, but on every other issue they are a right wing, very reactionary party that scapegoat immigrants. They are the furthest right party in Britain that is socially acceptable. The aim of the protestors was, in a fairly crude way, to show that in Scotland they are not socially acceptable here. Sometimes it's necessary to give demonstrations like that when our media, run by wealthy reactionaries, Conservatives and Unionists, refuses to do so.
If UKIP could ever be said to be scapegoating, it'd be scapegoating the EU not migrants. I don't attack any protests unless they cross the line and stop others speaking, otherwise I feel all should be given free reign to be loud and rude. Just be constructive whilst you're at it, or you're just wasting your time.
They're not leaving to a newer shop. The only people that are going to the newer shop is because the local newspaper is ridiculously biased in their favour and won't stop running articles about them while refusing to mention your shop at all.
Except that of all the big news stations and companies, I've only seen the telegraph try to paint UKIP in the best light possible at all times. Majority of the other media bias is stacked against them, with even the Daily Mail slabbing their bias in favour of the conservatives over UKIP. To top it all off the BBC has also been accused of taking far too long to reflect public opinion due to a left bias, and are only supposedly unbiased enough today.
Mr Prebble's report found that the corporation had been "slow" to reflect increasing public opposition to Britain's membership of the European Union.
Helen Boaden, the BBC's former director of news, who is now the head of radio, admitted that in the past the culture at the corporation meant that staff had failed to take campaign groups such as Migrationwatch seriously...
...The report found that despite the rise of the UK Independence Party, the BBC conducted fewer interviews with party members in 2012 than it did in 2007...
...The report found that the BBC was too reliant on the views of politicians, who tended to steer clear of "taboo" subjects, such as immigration, and warned that "even today the debate on the BBC may not reflect the public mood". People do not treat Farage as they do Griffin, they do not treat UKIP as BNP.
Maybe in England that is the case, in Scotland we see things differently.
Ok
It was founded to get Britain out of political union, a legitimate cause no less than what the SNP is doing.
It was founded for that purpose, but quickly drifted away from that purpose and became the acceptable voice of the far right in Britain. They are the British Tea Party.
"WHERE IS CAMERON'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE?"
Oh, I don't remember that. Meanwhile UKIP has gone on and on about independence, indeed whilst in Scotland independence from the EU was still on the top of the list with Scottish independence, so it's all balderdash.
Racism allegations are no longer a credible threat when you wield them with all the finesse of a drunk driver ploughing into a bus stand full of pedestrians.
As I have said, given the inability of our media to properly deal with UKIP and the Green Party in their reporting of this election sometimes we need to grandstand to get our point across. I'm not saying anyone in Scotland's going to look at the protest yesterday and say "wow, look at all those lefties, I'd better make sure I'm not going to vote UKIP", it just serves to galvanise the left (the links made in organising these rallies are useful for when campaigning begins), raises the publicity of the movement overall in the media and shows that Scotland and the rest of the UK are quite different worlds.
We already know Scotland and the UK are different worlds. I suppose maybe people across the pond don't know, but they don't really care much for geography. As for the green party, I have nothing to say because they haven't really done anything.
Poll
Author
Topic: Sheb's European Megathread: Remove Feta! (Read 1771113 times)