Mass immigration, and how Labour tried to destroy Britishness
By Simon Heffer
22nd February 2012
Throughout the tenure of the last Labour government this newspaper, and others — while praising the huge contribution immigrants had made to this country in the past — attacked the laxity of what were supposed to be our border controls.
It was clear the very nature of our society was being changed by a new kind of uncontrolled mass immigration — and without the British people ever having been asked whether they supported the policy….
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2104550/Mass-immigration-Labour-tried-destroy-Britishness.html#ixzz1nApMhrYM
The British are feeling the heat caused by immigrants, from the rights of immigrants to be themselves, translating information, competitive for services and infrastructure, etc etc. And they are a pretty big country with a great and proud history, and they are finding their country being pulled apart.
How would the presence of millions of immigrants living among us on a 2:3 ratio? The only thing to our advantage is that we don’t have much of a share history or proud history to cling to. We are rojak and adding more rojak would not undermine the quality of our rojak. We can be a city of continuous change, continuous rojak with no binding history or share identity. All we need is the drive to make money and more money.
Is this what we really want for our children and our country? Is this what we are working towards, a soulless country without any sense of pride or identity, everyone a piece of rojak? Are we really serious in wanting to build a nation of stayers or a city of vagabonds, wanderers, thrill seekers, opportunists, and money grabbers?
4 comments:
I think a healthy open-door policy is wonderful. It gives people more choices for them to choose from to put down their roots.
Immigration is always a sensitive issue because locals feel "threatened".
But societies change and so do cultures. Any kind of "mixing up" and exposure and integration to more diversity to me is a good thing. We now live in a technologically advanced and advancing world where higher population densities are possible, and desirable.
Consider the alternative: in a few decades Singapore society has been stagnant for years, most of the population is old -- you can hear the geezers wheezing and smell them farting. Very few young people, those who can afford to leave are leaving and society is indigent and moribund.
...thankfully in the present the borders are wide open for anyone with "the spirit" and a "can-do" attitude to come and settle or do business.
very few young people? You talking rubbish again. Have you been to Orchard and all the hip places in town?
I think the guest famiLEEs are sticking out like sore thumbs and the remedy is to have more guests settling down here. Then the locals will stick out like sore thumbs.
Saycheese
There are many major policy decisions of the govt that have grave impact on the people and country. It would only be appropriate that the govt sought the views and approval before implementing them.
Among these issues are in influx of foreigners, foreigners buying properties, CPF savings, spending taxpayer's money on foreigners etc etc.
Why is the people's consent not sought?
Post a Comment