In your opinion, How long before an immigrant....

[Norse]

They bring money in by doing the job they do. If they did not do that job, the farmer would not make as much money as less produce would be produced, therefore less produce would be sold.

That is a very simplistic way of looking at it. The fact is, that if push came to shove, the farming industry would need to increase the wages it paid its employees, and skim less of the cream itself. This would then increase the amount of cash that is being paid to employee's, increasing the buying power of British workers, keeping all money spent in Britain, therefore boosting our own economy.

Also, by buying stuff such as clothes, furniture, food etc.. they are contributing to the economy and the country.

That, I think you will find is funded mostly by British taxpayers

Tight fisted farmers? Farmers are given a raw deal by supermarkets so they have to pay only what they can afford. Btw, the wage is decent. The minimum wage is £5.35, and is rising to around £5.70 this Autumn I think, which in itself is a decent enough wage, especially for those unemployed and looking for an unskilled job.

That aint a decent wage, im afraid tit. Hard Graft, however "unskilled" it is, is worth more than that.

Christ, who's the bloody tory-boy now eh? You'll start preeching about the coal miners next.

Like the USA? A lot of Americans on this site like our system of universal health care. Also, having a health care paid for by taxes is cheaper per head then a private one like America by quite a substantial amount
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care#Economics.

Tit, you are misreading the facts here boyo. These figures do not include the expenditure per capita via taxation, merely only the "additional" direct medical expenditure.

Christ, do you think that it only costs me personally £1200 per year to fund the NHS?? hahaha! half of PAYE tax goes directly into the NHS budget..FACT!. If you assume the average person pays around 5-10K per year in PAYE, that is 2.5-5K alone....

The figures that they have given you (as stated in the source) are additional medical costs..ie dentistry and/or private care....

For odin's sake, try to read the facts correctly.

60 million people live in the UK. 574,000 immigrants came to the UK in the year to July 2007. 385,000 emigrated from the UK. Thats a net population rise of 189,000 people. Thats a 0.32% increase. You really thing a 0.32% increase in the population is going to overpower the infrastructure of the country? If the infrastructure cannot cope with the numbers, its because it cant cope with the 60 million, not because it cant cope with the 189,000.

Look tit. 189K is the same as the population of pompey...

Thats a well populated city there mate, just like that in a year. It sends the wind up me.

Look, as I had said in previous posts, these waves of migrations are alot different to that of the "old colonies", if you would excuse my mental constipation. Most of these nations knew about Britain, and were willing to embrace it.

[Stopper]

Besides, do you not know that 1/5th of londons crimes are commited by foreigners? they certainly do not make up 1/5th of londons population, not even nearly close to it.

According to the Institute for Public Policy Research, the foreign-born proportion of the population in London was 25% in 2005 - 1,779,300 people. This Wikipedia page has the details.

Clearly the indigenous population of London is more criminally-inclined than the foreign population. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE ABOUT THEM!



EDIT: and as to the question, someone is thoroughly "naturalised" when they grow up in the country, regardless of their genetic make-up or their birthplace.

Just to be controversial, that recent case with Chindamo (the boy who killed Philip Lawrence, the headmaster) was ridiculous. Whatever the rights and wrongs of his punishment, deportation was never a realistic or sensible option. He may have been Italian-born, born of (I think) a Filipino mother, but he grew up in this country since the age of 5 and has no connection with Italy. He's British.

[Norse]

...and so appears the 4th hairy nipple of the apocalypse....

[reverend_kyle]

I'd say second generation, if you're an adult then your kids would be.

If you're a kid and you can't remember your previous country as being a place of your childhood then you're indiginous to the new country.

[btownmeggy]

Re: Kugelblitz in http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5&start=60

Just to clarify, I am also opposed to the emphasis on test scores. Especially the emphasis on math and science

Norse's statements in this thread concerning "psychology" and "physiology" are why science education is important. Though... Norse does seem to have SOME sort of knowledge in science, unfortunately it's a la 1890. He undoubtedly would have had a glorious career as a phrenologist. He talks about "psychology" and "physiology" without any knowledge of neurosciences and genetics and how they actually work.

[flashleg8]

[...]Btw, the wage is decent. The minimum wage is £5.35, and is rising to around £5.70 this Autumn I think, which in itself is a decent enough wage, especially for those unemployed and looking for an unskilled job.

That aint a decent wage, im afraid [...]. Hard Graft, however "unskilled" it is, is worth more than that.

That's about the only thing you've said so far Norse that I agree with.

P.S. As for the thread question: I think its misleading. Most immigrants (and people form immigrant descent) will always have a dual culture, they can be both British and their original nation/homeland/creed. This in no way makes them less a part of our society than someone whose great grannie was born here. These people choose to come here because they want to be part of our community. They should be welcomed.

Remember all Britons are born under two flags Dual nationality is nothing new to us!

[AlgyTaylor]

I'd say as soon as you come to recognise and understand any generally shared values. On a national scale for the UK, stuff like the right to freedom of speech etc. Although that's to glaze over the issue somewhat - I'd say that culturally rural Wales is quite different from urban England, for example. It took me a year or more to adapt to a rural-Welsh way of living.

But overall, I'd say in the majority of cases people adapt sometime within the 1st generation. After that there's cultural differences, but more in terms of food/personal beliefs rather than a lack of understanding of the principles to which most people live by

[Norse]

Re: Kugelblitz in http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5&start=60

Just to clarify, I am also opposed to the emphasis on test scores. Especially the emphasis on math and science

Norse's statements in this thread concerning "psychology" and "physiology" are why science education is important. Though... Norse does seem to have SOME sort of knowledge in science, unfortunately it's a la 1890. He undoubtedly would have had a glorious career as a phrenologist. He talks about "psychology" and "physiology" without any knowledge of neurosciences and genetics and how they actually work.

Dearest meggy, one does not need to know about the in-depth studies into neuro-science to realise that evolutionary paths have an effect on the p[hysiological and psychological aspects of a person..


Here is a crude, nontheless valid example.

Victorian England!

Poverty amongst the lower classes, vast wealth among the higher classes. So impoverished were the lower classes, that there was an emphasis for the children of such families to go to work from as early an age as 4. Now, this lead to chronic disease and illnesses in later life for these children, as they were working in un-sanitary, and downright neglectful situations. Many of these children in later life,died very young, were disabled, unable to work or thrown into a situation were their kids needed to do the same.

Now, going onto the sexual selection that my old pal HC was brushing on earlier.

Which lady in her right mind would want to reproduce with a man, that would lead their children to being put in this situation? very very few.

The under-classed ladies would "tart themselves up" and attempt to court a rich fellow. That was the way it was in those days, it was a survival and well-being selective function. So what happens? more ladies are impregnated by wealthier men, obviously the wealthy man would have a number of "bitches". Many illegitamate children would be born, but they were illegitimate from "wealthier DNA"...cleverer and more likely to do well in life.

Now, take another example from, say, the tribes in africa from one thousand years ago.

In this darwanian time, if you couldn't eat... you die, yes?

If you were a better hunter, you caught more food. If you were a big, powerful, strong man, you would catch a great deal of food.

What lady, in these situations, would go after a puny little weasel who cannot catch enough food to feed a family? none who wished to bring up a healthy, well fed crop.

So again, the big strong african men got all the bitches, and the little puny ones die out, from either lack of reproduction or lack of foodm, and be able to provide for a large and numerous family.

This is a very rough but true example to show how 2 different climates alter the way in which evolutionary trends occur....Human nature adapts to its climate...evolution adapts to its climate.

It aint bloody rocket science.

On this note, I would also like to add that my maternal ancestors must have had a hankering for whopping great cocks.

[unriggable]

I'm sitll convinced it is the second generation - since I feel very american yet my parents are incredibly immigrantish.

[Norse]

I'm sitll convinced it is the second generation - since I feel very american yet my parents are incredibly immigrantish.

Where were your parents from originally?

[Inkl0ser]

I welcome immigrants.

[AlgyTaylor]

Depends on the person and the country they're emigrating to.

For example, my parents went to live in Wales about 5 years ago. I'd say now - my dad's definitely naturalised Welsh - his whole attitude is far more 'Welsh' than English. My mum's less so - she fits in very well there, but you can tell that there's still a certain English mentality with a few things. The Welsh folk will know what I mean there - Welsh people are .... different (in a good way).

Basically what I'm saying is that different people have different attitudes. Some people will become completely naturalised within a couple of years, others it might take up to three or four generations. People still keep their own beliefs and soforth.

As for when I consider someone to become a British (or anything else) citizen .... the moment they set foot in the country with the intention of making a life for themselves here. Personally I don't care if they speak another language, believe in things which I don't or whatever ... if they're willing to get involved, I'm willing to help them.

[brooksieb]

Well, my family (at least on one side) has been in the US for about 6 generations, and 4 of those are still alive. In short, my ancestors were rebels in Ireland. I'm thinking, maybe IRA, but I could be wrong.

I honestly hope not.

[jonesthecurl]

well if it's 20 generations there aren't a lot of Americans about...at a conservative 20 years to a generation that takes us back to the very early 17th century.

[PLAYER57832]

I get what Norse is saying. I say 2-3rd generation, because by then the kid grows up with the countries culture and so on and acts and behaves like the indigenous population.

I believe that if you adopt this country and obtain citizenship, then you are a part of this country, with full rights and and responsibilities (unless you happen to want to be president). But you are only "native"If you are born here.

However, I know a number of American Indians who would disagree.