Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions


What a UKIP Britain would look like

Recommended Posts


Ignoring your response? Well, as for the people doing all of that stuff just to get to Europe, couldn't they instead try and make a difference in their homeland? In the countries you were describing, things won't get better by simply waiting around, those groups seem determined to keep fighting to the last man. Or, in the case of completely hopeless scenarios like Libya, which is virtually a warzone between various terrorist souls even after Gaddafi got overthrown, move to a neighboring country at a much lower cost. Cultural differences would be smaller as well, and wouldn't bother the people (both locals and newcomers) as much.


Back to my list...


1. Europe may not be as overcrowded as the Gaza Strip or Nigeria, but still has areas where there has to be a stop at some point. Take Germany, for instance, with 80 million people in a country that is large by European standards, but really quite small on a global scale. I also mentioned the Western lifestyle as being more of a strain on natural resources, and when large numbers of people move from the 3rd world over here, they - sometimes unknowingly - join the bunch that consume unsustainably. Not all Western people do that, but it doesn't exactly help that the immigrants aren't always instructed on how to save their resources.


2. I seem to already have answered some of that in point 1. If air travel from those countries is restricted, maybe they should aim to promote peace then. And like I said, there are regions in Africa that aren't being affected by war at the moment.


3. Just because it's Daily Star (a site I hadn't even heard of before seeing that news bit) doesn't exactly make it false news either.


Law is the same for everyone, whether you're an illegal or a rich Western banker. Or at least, law should be the same for everyone. I also don't believe that difficult conditions in their past life is any sort of a justification for the outright evil acts they're doing... and I think the jury will agree with me on this, if and when people using violence (or threats of it) to reach their destination are brought to justice.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was more the fact you entirely shrugged off what an absolute howler of a comment, fairly obviously demonstrating your complete lack of knowledge on the subject, before launching into a procession of further points every bit as ridiculous as the first.


1) This is just incoherent rambling. It doesn't even begin to make sense. Please explain, furnished with examples, how Europe is "overcrowded" and how this is the responsibility of asylum seekers. The "natural resources" argument is pretty silly too; we aren't going to run out of them any time soon and with population growth stabilising and Western consumption flatlining and in some cases dropping, it's really the additional burden of the developing world we need to worry about.


2) There are, but these regions don't tend to be the major contributors in terms of asylum. And it's great that you think that the rights of individuals to exist without the fear of mass torture and murder is somehow too great a price to pay compared to the relatively minor financial burden- a burden that's pretty damn affordable in the context of the vast amount of waste that goes on in Western societies, but some of us live in the real world.


3) I can assure you it does.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I didn't exactly say Europe was overcrowded, only that it's not as much so as those other regions, but nitpicking aside: For a continent that shows up pretty tiny on the world map, Europe is home to over a tenth of the world's population, making it, at the very least, quite densely populated.


It's not the asylum seekers' responsibility though. I'm just thinking, maybe Europe has now had its fair share of immigrants in the past few decades. We can take some, yes. But thing is, with the current economic situation, we can't even find jobs for all of the native populace (even if we discount the welfare bums), so how are the immigrants going to get employed any better either? Europe doesn't need any more of the jobless people, it's not necessarily their fault they can't find one, but until they do, they're not helping the economy either.


2. It can become more than a financial burden though. There are also those social issues that have arisen in many Western countries... but I'll stop it here. We've already went through that no-go zone stuff before in this thread and it didn't exactly lead anywhere...


So yeah... No offence, Sivis (is that an appropriate abbreviation?), but I think we've both made our viewpoints kinda clear, and this conversation's feeling like a replay of last time, which I also got bored of midway through... so I'll back off when I'm still on good terms. This might be just unnecessary chit-chat, but I actually got a ban a few weeks ago on a different forum for not managing to keep myself in check (discussion was about similar things as here), and would rather not go down that path again.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Rikowski

Your viewpoint is quite clear: boat people come to Europe for free money.

Just be thankful you don't have to live in the real world. You wouldn't survive.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) The net population density of the EU is distinctly average. If the EU were a country, it would be ranked 96th out of 242 sovereign states and overseas territories- and much of the bottom of the table I'd taken up with island groups like the Falklands, Greenland and Niue which have incredibly low densities. You keep making allusions to "fair shares" and "enough" but fail to quantify these ideas. Employment rates are abnormally high across most of Europe and the idea that immigrants displace domestic workers is empirically and demonstrably false- immigration is a net job creator.


2) It didn't lead anywhere because many the points that have been raised tend to be based on public misconceptions and are factually untrue. Clear personal viewpoints are all well and good but the reason earlier discussions never led anywhere- and nor will this one- is the moment someone disputes the factual accuracy of someone's statements in such a way that denying it is very difficult, the person whose views are being addressed tends to disappear without responding or wind down their argument, but generally the former as that isn't an implicitly an admission of being wrong.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


You can try and deflect the issue all you want by totally ignoring hundreds of years of history, and just using very recent figures.

Well, if you want to look at history, let's go even further back to the times of the Roman invasion, the Anglo-Saxon and Norse settlements (plus several invasions in the case of the latter) and the Norman, Breton and French conquest of Britain. Unless you start arbitrarily setting periods of time during which you want to consider "immigration" to have occurred the whole thing becomes very silly very fast. Either deal with current immigration trends, which show the UK on a rough par with the US, or deal with historic ones and accept that very few English people are actually ethnically "English".


The fact is that previously colonised countries like the USA, Australia, Brazil are completely different to the UK in terms of history of immigration.

Aside from the question of timescale, how?


What's the native American population as a percent of the population of the U.S? What's the native British population as a percent of the UK? There is a clear difference.

Indeed there is. The "native" population of the UK- that is, direct blood lines to pre-Roman Britons unsullied by the influence of, oh, round about two thousand years of invasion, immigration and domestic population displacement is so small as to be effectively zero. In fact, it might quite literally be zero. I would hazard that every single white British individual living in the United Kingdom today would have genetic heritage derived from one, or several of the above named ethnic groups. I mean, feel free to choose some arbitrary date at which you want to start measuring from in order to determine who "British" citizens might be, but good luck explaining how that date is more valid than any other for the purposes of the argument. Going back only a dozen generations (which is incidentally as far as I've traced back my family lineage) I'm ethnically French, Norwegian, Jewish of some kind (suspect Polish), Irish and English, so by your metric am I "British" or am I the descendents of immigrants? Because if I'm not an immigrant, nor is a huge proportion of the US population.


The UK is not an immigrant nation because it existed without the need for immigration and doesn't have a history (until recently) of large scale immigration

This is simply factually untrue. Case in point, basically all of British history from about AD 43 onwards.



Please explain then how those invasions mean there isn't an English ethnicity? Because none of those examples involve the transplanting of one ethnic group at the expense of the native one, or some sort of massive genocide. Even the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, which was by far the largest out of those you listed, didn't involve the removing or replacing of the native population or even come anywhere close. The population of Britain around the time of the Anglo Saxon invasion was about 2 million people, at least. The number of original Anglo Saxons that came to Britain was much fewer than that, highest estimates are around 5 digits and the lowest being less than 10,000.


None of those invasions effectively replaced the native population. Rather it was the culture of the invaders which had much more impact and became dominant. The Anglo-Saxons didn't take control of Britain by eradicating or replacing the native population, which far far outnumbered them. They managed it because at that point Britain was basically a bunch of loose tribes, and a small number of trained invaders, together with rich native landowners collaborating with those invaders, gained a foothold in the south east and slowly expanded their influence and power. The natives slowly adopted Anglo-Saxon culture, 2 million people didn't just vanish.


British history is full of invasions and immigration yes, but the native population from pre-Roman Britain is still the dominant and underlying genetic make-up of most Brits. Centuries of immigration has "sullied" it, but that's the case with every ethnic group. There is a degree of intermixing. Just because there isn't some sort of pure blood line stretching back for millenia doesn't mean ethnic groups aren't a thing though. If you deny that there is an English ethnic group, then you deny ethnicity as a concept, because you can't say there isn't an English one but then somehow say German, Japanese etc all exist.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly whom are you defining as the native population of Britain, Stu? The Celtic Britons? I mean, in terms of heritage they're arguably the closest to ethnically "British" being descended from the Neolithic people but they were killed in very large numbers by the Roman invaders and those who weren't destroyed were absorbed into Roman society, diluting the "British" ethnic heritage. What about the fact that recent studies indicate that most Britons are generically Basque rather than Celts? I mean, if you're going to argue for an "English" or "British" nationality, at least do the courtesy of explaining what it is.


Or is the crux of your argument that ethnic heritage isn't based on genetic differentiation but stays static in cases where immigrant populations add their genetic stock to a predefined mix? In which case you could feasibly argue (though I'm not sure with what conviction) that the UK isn't an "immigrant " nation but the US is, but that also invalidates the notion that immigration is destroying British heritage.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that Sivis has already covered this topic extensively Stu, but to be clear, could you clearly define what British heritage actually is? You seem to use this loose term very frequently and I have trouble understanding what it is you're referring to every time you bring it up.

Edited by Secura

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.