Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In Leeds, the worst areas certainly aren't the places where immigrants live. They're the areas where foreigners get beat up for speaking in funny accents.
Sweden is a different matter, of course, because its migration policy is stupid - but Sweden's immigrants are probably the worst integrated in all of Europe. Norway has a similar number of immigrants as a % of its population, including from the Middle East, but doesn't have as many issues with them. One big problem Sweden also faces with immigration is that they end up congregating in certain areas, whereas that shouldn't be allowed to happen.
Yes, I know your solution to any problems as a result of immigration is to simply stop all immigration from everywhere, but that will never happen, so other solutions are needed. A moderate level of immigration is indeed beneficial to the economy. Integration is possible. Indians in the UK are economically successful and well integrated, despite coming from a country where women are second-class citizens and homosexuals are seen as disgusting.
Last edited by dunno what to put here; 09-18-2016 at 09:57 AM..
Replacement migration, as you put it, has been London's saving grace. 30 years ago, the city was rundown and riddled with crime. Today, London is safer than it has ever been at any point, and areas that were previously very rundown have 'gentrified' and regenerated.
Areas like Hackney in the 1980s were overrun with old East End Cockney gangsters, people peddling drugs on the streets and homeless people sleeping in every available doorway. That area in the video might look 'third world' because most people are black or Arab, but you can bet that it's one of the areas in England that has seen the most improvement over the past decade. London boroughs like Hackney and Tower Hamlets - both 'majority minority' - were in the top 10 most deprived in England in 2010. In 2015, they aren't even in the top 20 anymore. They have improved while many other areas have gotten worse. Indeed, London's comparatively homogeneous suburbs have gotten more deprived. Poverty is being 'suburbanised'.
As London has become more multicultural, it has become safer, richer and a better place to live. Its schools have become the best in the UK because immigrant children do better in exams. One of its schools in a racially diverse area of West London, where most people are of Indian descent, sent about 30 children to Mensa.
London's homicide rate fell to its lowest level on record in 2012 at 1.1/100,000. In 1990, it was at 2.5/100,000. It hat 478 violent crimes in 2008 compared to 1026 in 1995 (when British crime was at its statistical peak). It had 99 murders in 2012 - this is a city with 9.5 million people!
Immigration may well be bad for Malmo, but it's not bad for London. Anyone who knew London in the 1980s and 1990s will attest to that. The city is better than ever before - and I'm sorry to say but the displacement of many of its former residents has made it a better (and safer) place. There is simply no denying that.
Last edited by dunno what to put here; 09-18-2016 at 10:26 AM..
Whether it is "better" or not will largely depend on your own perspective. It's hard to imagine a proud Englishman genuinely feeling that way with regard to replacement migration. Sure, it's better for immigrants and their descendants as they gain representation, visibility, and economic/political power. The question for natives, though, is whether it's better for them. Their own group interests would be to have more - rather than fewer - people around them who are of their own people. Even when they don't explicitly affirm this, they will tend to self-segregate (if they have the means to), so we can know how they feel about that.
What's there to like about losing control of your own homeland? It's unfortunate for Brits because most of those ethnic groups that are replacing them are far more ethnocentric than Brits themselves are. Others will flock to Britain to improve their living standards, but they won't exactly flock to a British identity. Who can blame them for that? I don't. It would be quite awkward and unnatural for a British-born Pakistani, for example, to boast about Britain's historical achievements. It's not even a racial matter so much as it is an ethnic one - I'd say the same for a British-born Pole, for instance.
An ethnically divided society is simply much easier to control. People will tend not to band together. The elites will sell out their own people if they can profit from it.
Whether it is "better" or not will largely depend on your own perspective. It's hard to imagine a proud Englishman genuinely feeling that way with regard to replacement migration. Sure, it's better for immigrants and their descendants as they gain representation, visibility, and economic/political power. The question for natives, though, is whether it's better for them. Their own group interests would be to have more - rather than fewer - people around them who are of their own people. Even when they don't explicitly affirm this, they will tend to self-segregate (if they have the means to), so we can know how they feel about that.
What's there to like about losing control of your own homeland? It's unfortunate for Brits because most of those ethnic groups that are replacing them are far more ethnocentric than Brits themselves are. Others will flock to Britain to improve their living standards, but they won't exactly flock to a British identity. Who can blame them for that? I don't. It would be quite awkward and unnatural for a British-born Pakistani, for example, to boast about Britain's historical achievements. It's not even a racial matter so much as it is an ethnic one - I'd say the same for a British-born Pole, for instance.
An ethnically divided society is simply much easier to control. People will tend not to band together. The elites will sell out their own people if they can profit from it.
I'm talking about it being 'better' for London as a city and the people who live there. The decline in crime, the improvement in education standards and the regeneration of vast areas of inner-city London may or may not be directly linked to immigration, but it certainly hasn't been detrimental to the fortunes of the city, nor its residents. It's a fantastic city - and one of the safest cities of its size in the world. I have no doubt that some people have been uncomfortable with the pace of change that's occurred in the city and have moved away, but this is their choice - London is a city that has always changed, and always will. Crime is down, schools are better, job opportunities are abundant - unlike many cities in the US where the opposite is true. The chances of getting your head kicked in is a lot lower now than it was 3 decades ago. London schools are the best in the country whereas 20 years ago they were amongst the worst. Can you say hand on heart that this is a bad thing? Is it a bad thing that you can walk around certain areas of London and feel safe whereas 2 or 3 decades ago you'd risk getting jumped on?
I'm not ethnocentric, whereas you certainly are - that's why I don't really care. I tend to view things in ways that can be empirically measured. If immigration has been a bad thing for certain cities then you need to look at why. If immigration has been successful in other cities then again you need to ask why. Sweden has done a poor job of integration its immigrants whereas the UK has done much better.
Last edited by dunno what to put here; 09-18-2016 at 11:28 AM..
I'm talking about it being 'better' for London as a city and the people who live there. The decline in crime, the improvement in education standards and the regeneration of vast areas of inner-city London may or may not be directly linked to immigration, but it certainly hasn't been detrimental to the fortunes of the city, nor its residents. It's a fantastic city - and one of the safest cities of its size in the world. I have no doubt that some people have been uncomfortable with the pace of change that's occurred in the city and have moved away, but this is their choice. Crime is down, schools are better, job opportunities are abundant - unlike many cities in the US where the opposite is true.
I'm not ethnocentric, whereas you certainly are - that's why I don't really care. I tend to view things in ways that can be empirically measured.
Well, it doesn't seem to make much sense to refer solely to what's better for "the people who live there," since that naturally encompasses immigrants and their descendants themselves. If city A, once belonging to ethnicity x, but taken over by ethnicity y, happens to see improvement in some respects, then city A itself (i.e., the concept itself) may be "better off," but not from the perspective of x! For me, the city (as with the community, the nation, etc.) is the people, not the physical or political features thereof. The USA may be a "better" place that what came before (i.e., Native American tribal lands), but for sure I can understand that Native Americans will not necessarily share that perspective.
But white British people make up the largest ethnic group in London - it's better for them as well. They live in a city that is safer, wealthier and with better schools. This is why people from other areas of the UK are moving to London. The comparison to Native Americans doesn't make sense because they were actively persecuted and marginalised - and today they remain economically and socially disadvantaged. This does not apply to white people in the UK wherever they live* because even in areas where they are a minority they are still the dominant group of people in politics and the most successful ethnic group in monetary terms. It's like, men are a 'minority' but still disproportionately find themselves in positions of power. White people are a minority globally but white countries still wield a disproportionate level of power globally both in political and economic terms.
*note that I'm not arguing that white people can't be disadvantaged like some sort of Tumblr SJW because that's obviously crap. I'm just making the point that being a minority does not equate to being marginalised or worse off. There are too many examples to the contrary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
